Hello, Melanie. It seems that various things about your editing are similar to a persistent disruptive editor, which is why an edit filter stopped your attempts to edit Canada's Next Top Model, Cycle 1. I don't know enough about that editor to know how seriously to take the evidence, but I have assumed you are an innocent editor caught in collateral damage, and made the edit for you. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Patton Associates, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Enterprises and Store (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Roomsurf has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Yet another non-notable web-based business, with an article propped up by press releases, passing mentions, and directory listings.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Calton | Talk 11:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roomsurf is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roomsurf until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Calton | Talk 00:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article PushToTest has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Corporate puff piece, inflated by passing mentions and directory listings. Also "finalist" for a Top 100 listing?

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Calton | Talk 04:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kevin Surace has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Corporate puff-piece. A listing on CNBC and giving a TED talk isn't sufficient.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Calton | Talk 04:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kevin Surace is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Surace until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Calton | Talk 17:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PushToTest is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PushToTest until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Calton | Talk 17:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Swags Galore is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swags Galore until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George Patton Associates is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Patton Associates until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shayan Zadeh is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shayan Zadeh until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alex Mehr is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Mehr until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on RepairClinic.com, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Parts Models is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parts Models until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to give a less promotional appearance to your articles, be more restrained in linking them. It is our policy that only relevant links be made, where the material in the linked article will help the reader. The links should be made at the first occurrence only of a word, except possibly in very long articles. The links should be to the actual article discussing the subject if there is one; do not force a link by linking one word in a phrase. If something is not important enough to have an article, don't link it to a very loosely related article that does not discuss it significantly with a piped link: you have been using these to imply that a product has an article by linking to the company or to some general concept . Do not link parts of words. Do not normally link quoted words, or those in references. . Do not imply that a company has an article by using an external link to its home page, (In the article onFrank Cohen, you linked the word software at least qw times, even when it was a part of the name of a firm. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The company is probably notable, or at least it has gotten enough publicity to indicate it, if it is considered that some of the references truly are independent. (The internetretailer article is the only really good substantial reference I could identify; the vindicator article, tho substantial, consists of the founder talking about himself. Ditto for metromode. Ditto for investmentunderground ) With enough work, the promotionalism can probably be removed, but it might take extensive rewriting. I'm going to hold off on listing it for deletion as requiting more than normal editing, to give you a chance to correct it. Please do it yourself. I have done too much cleaning up after you. You have been using the same promotional techniques as in previous articles. Here's what you must do:

1. Only include the names of the founder(s) and ceo: you have listed 5t other people both in the infobox and the article. They belong in neither.
2. Don't link uninformative words like "company", "consumers" . a link to "website" is probably acceptable, but you made several links to the same term, which is not permitted.
3. The infobox is meant to be condensed. Don't write a long phrase for Products. I'd suggest "appliance replacement parts" .
4. Don't use references to mere mentions of the company in articles about something else, such as the references 1, 4, 6. Never use article from PR web, or reprinted from PR web, like ref 7.
5. In the infobox, parents means parent company or companies, not the name of the founders.

If you want to continue writing here, you have to be more careful. I've already given you what ought to have been enough of a warning. And the deletion or redirection of most of the articles you have written should have made it clear what the community thinks. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you made the necessary changes. I did a little further copyediting, for you had missed pt. 5. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Pneus Online requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pneus Online is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pneus Online until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]