User talk:OliviaBlond

Davina

Since you know Davina, you have a conflict of interest and I'd advise you not to edit her article. cheers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

Hello OliviaBlond. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Davina Reichman, 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, 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 you, your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with 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 a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Davina.R for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Davina Reichman, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. It is not appropriate as a conflicted editor to remove reliable sources from an article. If the links have been deleted for those reliable sources, then instead of deleting the content you should include a deadlink tag so that an archival source can be located. Removing such content in an effort to change the facts in the article is not appropriate due to your declared conflict of interest. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly note:

The Vancouver Sun confirmed that the article on iClothing was factually incorrect and was deleted. The indexing of the article "Have your iPad in hand? Now you need a little black iDress". Vancouver Sun: p. C.3. June 1, 2010. ISSN 08321299. Proquest 2049290071” was deleted from the databases of ProQuest, OCLC and WorldCat and no longer exists.

These articles are not archived. They have been comprehensively deleted in entirety, ie no archived version or any other version exists.

OliviaBlond (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC) OliviaBlond[reply]