User talk:Trenchant
November 2008[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Petals Around the Rose. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --EEMIV (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
There was a specific reason the post was altered. See the hidden description within the post.
The reason I have interest in this area is because of the website I am redesigning. http://petalsaroundtherose.net/game.php
Trenchant (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Luke Shaheen Renowned Website Development RenownedDesign.net
The recent edit you made to Petals Around the Rose constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. abf /talk to me/ 22:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- There has been previous discussion on the issue. Your personal opinion does not change the result of the previous discussion. You are welcome to reopen discussion, but unilateral action does not change consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Your Petals around the Rose website[edit]
I noticed that you have advertising placed on the website you mentioned. Accordingly, you should consider the following:
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Petals Around the Rose, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
- avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Please feel free to check the statistics on the website. It has no public traffic or advertising. The site was put together as an experiment. The last time it was active was over a year ago. Since its recreation there has been less then 10 unique visitors. I have enough clients do deal with that the site is not a priority.
Even so, there is no conflict of interest. I do not make more money if people know the solution as you propose.
Trenchant (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Petals Around the Rose[edit]
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Petals Around the Rose, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. The template clearly says not to remove it until dispute is resolved - please do not remove.
Hmm... I didn't think I did delete anything. At first I did yes. Then I was quote "vandalizing" by not destroying the object of a game. Fair enough. Mediation started. I think you may want to recheck the dates of the changes. I understand the concept of mediation quite clearly. That would be why I started it.