User talk:Smiller44

Do not delete the controversies section of the Smile Train article without discussion and consensus: to do so is vandalism of the article. 842U (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent edits to Smile Train. For what it's worth, its always good to have pro's and con's in a 'controversy' section to provide balance and maintain NPOV. That said, rather than just duplicate info from the American Institute of Philanthropy, I linked to that article as well as Intelligent Giving. I also linked to the Steven Levitt article, and moved his quote, modified to include more of his quote, to the section lead.

It's not clear from the nature of your edits to Smile Train whether you have a [conflict of interest], but your edits to remove controversial information, provide unreferenced, pro-Smile Train information in the "Controversies" section of the article, the fact that you've only contributed to the Smile Train article, and that your User name has has "Smil(l)er" in it — all these suggest the possibility of conflict of interest. Be advised that editing with a 'conflict of interest' is strongly discouraged, and that editors with a conflict of interest are encouraged to declare their conflict of interest on their talk pages.

In the meantime, please use edit summary line to clarify your edits.842U (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smile Train

OK, I moved this discussion to here, where it belongs.842U (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have posted updated comments on the Smile Train talk page re: the controversy section of the Smile Train article.

Please do not pad the article with information unrelated specifically to Smile Train, again.
Please address the Conflict of Interest concern.
Please fix the Guidestar link, it isn't functioning.
Please discuss your issues on the discussion page. If you continue to revert the page (which is considered edit warring), given the concern about your possible conflict of interest, you made lead to the article being protected from edits, and possible further sanctions. Discuss and reach concensus.
You need to sign your edits on talk pages, using four tilda's.

In the meantime, let's work with each other, assuming good faith. 842U (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special Ambassadors

Notice that none of the references you added for the list of Special Ambassadors is actually a functioning reference. In other words, you added a list of special ambassadors, made it appear you were adding references, but did not actually provide verifiable sources for their addition. If you fix the references, it would be reasonable to keep the list in the article. Short of the references, they need to be removed. 842U (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry. (blocked by –MuZemike 21:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.