suburban express we would apprciate any guidance you can give us 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 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 october orangemike talk contribs bytes you were unblocked so you could get a new username those were links to your corporate website undo i have two questions should i have posted as ip user instead or am i just expected to keep quiet until the username change is complete 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