"

Suburban Express

We would apprciate any guidance you can give us http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Guidance_Sought  We feel the Suburban Express article is being dominated by haters, who cry foul whenever and however we push back. We would like to see the article more neutral/balanced/objective.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.28.113   

Hi. I've made some suggestions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Guidance Sought.  (talk · contribs · email)  

Hello. As you know, I'm waiting for a pending name change. I've stayed away from posting on the noticeboard until the name change is complete, and I thoroughly appreciate that I have a COI and must not edit Suburban Express. However, I am under the impression that it is permissible for me to contribute to the Suburban Express talk page. One thing that has plagued the article is the fact that conventional-media sources are not necessarily avaialble online. There has been productive discussion on the talk page today, and I am encouraged by that, and I offered up two conventional-media articles, which are pdf's on my company's server  because they do not exist elsewhere on the internet. The links were immediately whacked by OrangeMike:

""20:46, 27 October 2013‎ Orangemike (talk | contribs)‎ . . (188,881 bytes) (-367)‎ . . (1. You were unblocked so you could get a new username; 2. those were links to your corporate website) (undo)""

I have two questions: 1) Should I have posted as IP user instead? Or am I just expected to keep quiet until the username change is complete?, 2) What is the issue with the ""corporate website""? The links are to pdf's of legitimate, unaltered news paper articles.

Your guidance will be appreciated.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs)  

Hi. Sorry. You and I are on opposite sides of the world. That was because Orangemike wants you to create a user name that conforms to WP:ROLE before you do any more communicating here, and he (mistakenly in my opinion) thinks it is a copyright violation to briefly host a link to a copyrighted document while a few people discuss it. 
I don't have time to get involved with your case but my one reading of the article tells me that it needs to say something about the litigation - provided the sources reporting it are strong. If they do conform to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, don't expect to have all mention removed. The quality of the sources can be assessed by independent eyes at WP:RSN or maybe you could attract more independent eyes via a Wikipedia:Request for comment (you should follow that blue link if you don't already know about RFC) on the article's talk page. And the amount of space devoted to the litigation and criticism of it (and the language used) needs independent eyes (maybe at WP:NPOVN or at an RFC if you decide to go down that road). 
User:SlimVirgin is a very experienced, widely-respected admin. If she offers any advice, it's usually worth taking. 
Have you had the name change yet?  (talk · contribs · email)  

Thanks for your response and all of your helpful tips. No action on the name change yet. I'll just wait that out. Regards,   
Anthony, a reproduction of a copyrighted article on a third party's website is a copyright violation. Our rules are quite clear: we don't link to copyright violations. Additionally: in this era of Photoshop, we do not consider a purported scan of any document as a reliable source, especially when there is potential conflict of interest involved.  | [[User talk:Orangemike|Talk