LisaW24

Welcome

Hello, DrErikaTS! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

User pages

Please note that user pages have limited uses - writing your own biography is not one of them. The use of {{infobox person}} is also something for use in mainspace - not user pages. If you are considering drafting a page about yourself, note that that is a conflict of interest and is inappropriate. You may draft such a page as a subpage and ask for a separate review before someone else pastes it into a page, but you should first ensure you are notable and that the page is not unduly self-promoting. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, your user page is not a personal homepage and should not look like a mainspace page. Please review the guidelines on user pages. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

How many times must I repeat myself? Your user page is not a form of advertising and shouldn't be a biography. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

Please help me edit my page. I rewrote my article and thought it was ready that is why I moved it to Main page.DrErikaTS (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You should not be writing your own article. Period. See the guidelines on conflict of interest and autobiography. Also review the policy on edit warring. Do not revert another editor, particularly when it is on a page where you have a conflict of interest.

Also, I have removed significant blocks of text because they were unsourced. You are not a reliable source about yourself - assuming you are actually Dr. Schwartz, and not an employee of hers as suggested in the e-mail you sent me.

Information on living people must be based on reliable sources. Self-published sources are to be used with caution and can not be used for information that is self-serving, unduly flattering, or much beyond basic statements of fact. Care must also be taken that Dr. Scwhartz is actually notable, a fact that is not apparent by the sources identified - not everyone who appears on TV or publishes a book warrants a wikipedia page.

That you took so long to respond in any way to my initial points and in fact the numerous messages posted on your talk page makes it more difficult to assume good faith. Respond quickly to points that are raised, do not simply ignore them and persist in editing when problems have been pointed out. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Who, may I ask, usually writes pages for the numerous other doctors on wikipedia? I am unclear as to how they differentiate or are not self promoting? They seem informational as does Dr Erika schwartz's. We greatly appreciate your assistance.DrErikaTS (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Check the history tab. Pages are edited collectively and through a collaborative process in which individuals all contribute as bound by our rules. If any of those individuals are editing their own wikipedia pages, this is equally inappropriate. This could have been resolved earlier if either one of the people using this account had bothered to read and reply to these points several weeks ago.

If you are unfamiliar with the wiki process, try reading the pages on wikis, Wikipedia, Web 2.0 as well as the policy pages on what wikipedia is not, what wikipedia is and the simplified ruleset. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Erika Schwartz

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Dr. Erika Schwartz, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.bioidenticalhormoneinitiative.org/?q=node/2. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Dr Erika schwartz is the owner of the copyright.DrErikaTS (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dr. Erika Schwartz

A tag has been placed on Dr. Erika Schwartz requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Which external website is owned by a party other than Dr Erika Schwartz and is in potential copyright infringement? And how do you same the name of a website in "your own words?DrErikaTS (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dr. Erika Schwartz

A tag has been placed on Dr. Erika Schwartz, 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 an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Which company, product, group service or person is being promoted? This is Dr Erika Schwartz's history, practice and medical education, the same as Dr. Jonathan Wright, Dr Andrew Weil, Dr Memhet Oz. I am unclear as to how it is promoting anymore than any other public figure or public figure physician. DrErikaTS (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Thehormonesolution.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Thehormonesolution.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

We have created the file uploaded with persmission of Dr Erika schwartz, who is the copyright owner. Dr Schwartz owns the rights and has licensed them to us to upload her book. What is another way to go about this?DrErikaTS (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:DrErikaSchwartz30day.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:DrErikaSchwartz30day.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Spam warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

This is the first of four warnings, continuing to use your talk page as a form of advertising will result in a block. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to User:DrErikaTS. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. This is the second of four warnings. Continuing to use your talk page for advertising will result in a block. You have consistently failed to even attempt to discuss what is wrong with your page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising service. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Very confusing, as every other physician, Dr. Weil, Dr. Oz, Dr Wright,etc have their personal websites on their pages.DrErikaTS (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

They do not have "personal websites". They have wikipedia pages, and if they are also editors, they have user pages. They, like all editors, are not permitted to edit their own wikipedia pages. These are not personal websites, they are encyclopedic descriptions of the life and impacts of these individuals. Also, "I see x somewhere else" is not an appropriate justification to edit any page. Edits must be in line with the policies and guidelines. That is your standard.

Lack of awareness of this may be due to having two individuals use the same account. This is inappropriate and should cease. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

We have ceased using two of us as editors, you will be relieved to know. What I meant was that on their wikipedia page, their personal websites are listed. I/we know understand this process and will be correcting our mistakes. Thank you for your patience and explanations.DrErikaTS (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Schwartz' blog and huffington post contributions are linked as external links. If you believe other external links are appropriate you should review the guidelines on external links and demonstrate why they should be linked and that they are not links to avoid. After changing your user name. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Cease editing your own page immediately

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Erika Schwartz, 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:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. 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 conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Help request

{{helpme}}

Algebraist 01:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Or talk to us live, with this or this.  Chzz  ►  01:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I am new to wikipedia and it seems really complex. I created [1] on my userpage and when done I moved it to the main page to go LIVE and I got tons of comments like conflict of interest, self-promoting,speedy deletion, etc. I don't understand what they meant by those. I rewrote over and over again but still got the same comments. Please help.DrErikaTS (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This could have been avoided easily by replying on your talk page when I posted my first comment more than a month ago. And my second comment two days later, and a third two weeks after that. I have pointed out the variety of policies and guidelines which should impact your editing, both here and on Talk:Erika Schwartz. I would suggest reading those policies and guidelines as a starting point. I have linked all of the policies and guidelines, click on the hyperlinks as usual and you can start familiarizing yourself with how to edit wikipedia appropriately. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please be advised that this user name is not Dr. Erika Schwartz nor an employee of the doctor. We are representatives of the Bioidentical Hormone Institute, an online physician training institution. We are creating wiki pages for our faculty and Dr. Erika is the course director for our flagship course on the use of hormones in private practice. The user name of DrErikaTS was created in 2008 by an unrelated entity. We have reviewed your rules and guidelines and do not find any conflict of interest. Please post our original page since the page you just posted contains misspellings as well as erroneous information.DrErikaTS (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, a company that hired Dr Schwartz, and is now trying to promote Dr Schwartz by posting a biography about her really does have a conflict of interest. It'd be like the employees of Coca-Cola's advertising agency writing the article and then saying, "But we work for the advertising agency, not for Coca-Cola, Inc!"

You should probably stop editing this article entirely, and limit your activities to suggestions that other editors add information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not any better. Before creating any wikipedia page, review our notability guidelines and ensure the subjects pass. Also, if you had read the conflict of interest policy thoroughly, you would know that editing on behalf of a client is also not acceptable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

We are new to this process and this is the reason for the complications, we only found this page the other day with your comments. Our apologies. We know that Dr Erika Schwartz, her website and her research and writings are notable topics. Please be so kind as to advise us on how to post a wikipedia page. We can do so by a source unrelated to Dr Erika Schwartz.DrErikaTS (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You say there is a "we", who and/or how many people exactly are editing wikipedia from this account? It's rather hard to believe you failed to see these comments previously - every time a user's talk page is posted on, there's a large orange box that appears at the top of all wikipedia pages that says so.

If Dr. Schwartz and related topics are notable, this must be demonstrated through reliable sources. If you attempt to add them to the page yourself, you risk a block. Post the sources on Talk:Erika Schwartz for review by non-conflict of interest editors or use the {{helpme}} template to attract the attention of other editors. To save time, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability (academics), as well as the core Wikipedia:Notability) page. Having looked into it a bit, Dr. Shwartz seems like a relatively nonnotable private practitioner who is advocating for an unproven and poorly-regarded set of interventions that have minimal support within the scholarly community. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"We" is two of us at the Bio Identical Hormone Initiative, I am the attorney and the other is writer. Dr Erika Schwartz is one of our experts and founders. I understand now that this is not good enough and the editors of the page should be unrelated to Dr Erika Schwartz, which begs the questions that how could an unrelated party know about writing the details of her life? So it can be infered from your statements that every person on your site has a stranger writing their page for them? That said, if we need to find a further outside source and start from scratch we will do that. It is a overly harsh and deeply innapropriate to say Dr Erika Schwartz and her 30+ years of dedication and hard work are not notable and have minimal support from the scholarly community. She has a published article for the Medical Clinics of North America, has authored four published books by the largest publishing houses and recently spoke at Harvard University by invitation of the Chairmen of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Her "unproven and poorly regarded set of interventions" grace the covers of magazines and are the leading topics in breaking news on daily basis, not only that but there are thousands of physicians practicing these "interventions" and hundreds of pharmacies creating these "interventions". Wikipedia consists of several people who use these "interventions". Please clarify how exactly the pages for Dr. Jonathan Wright, Dr Mehmet Oz, Dr Andrew Weil and TS Wiley (who is not even a college graduate) are more notable and how they are better and more deserving than she is. I feel that we are under attack and being quite wrongly offended when we are simply trying to educate the world of one of our several experts who have a goal of helping millions of men and women to feel better and live healthier and longer lives. I am beyond appalled by your accusations and insults, please let me know how to contact your supervisor immediately or someone who knows how to show respect to a doctor and patient advocate who has dedicated her life to bettering the lives of people like you and your family and friends. And yes, I was not aware of the orange box and I continue to not see an orange box on my computer screen but I apologize for being so inattentive and reckless.DrErikaTS (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Undent. Cease editing collectively immediately. Also, immediately cease using this account. You can and should apply for a new user name immediately. You should also not edit any main pages related to Dr. Schwartz again, though you can submit suggestions on the relevant talk pages. If the information you are adding is known only to Dr. Schwartz, it should not be on the page (there is a second policy to this effect, so doubly so). I say "should", but it's more of a "must" if you want to avoid being blocked.

Every "person" on this site who has a page about them (i.e. every wikipedia page about a person, a more accurate way of describing it) was indeed written by strangers (ideally). You shouldn't be starting from scratch, you shouldn't be editing these pages at all. If you had read our conflict of interest guidelines, you'd see exactly why COI accounts shouldn't make pages about themselves - the page's subject can be non-notable, the information can be unduly self-serving, blatantly one-sided, the information may be unreliable, or blatantly promotional. If you see these as a series of barriers to your ability to edit these pages, this is deliberate. It is not a right to edit wikipedia, and the community looks extremely dimly on people who see wikipedia as a great way to advertise or "get the message out". These principles act as protection as well, as individuals who disagree or criticize individuals don't get to put that on pages either.

I stand by my statement of Dr. Schwartz' notability. In order to understand my point, you must read our guidelines on notability. Your normal understanding of notability does not apply, we have a specific technical definition. In addition, your statement about her being notable (by our definition) is belied by the inability to find independent sources to justify her notability. By contrast, the notability criteria for academics requires substantial coverage and major innovations. The popular nature of her contributions, without being Dr. Phil popular, makes it difficult to justify the specific guidelines for notability. There are scientists with hundreds of scholarly works and dozens of books who don't have wikipedia pages and shouldn't have them because their contributions may be valuable to science but they are unknown outside of their field and they have not published any substantial revisions, restatements or revolutions in their field. As for how any of those people have their own pages, you'll have to read WP:N to see if they meet notability, and if not feel free to nominate them for deletion.

The magazines that she's on the cover of are inappropriate to justify editing any of wikipedia's medical pages. Popular coverage is worthless for many of the uses people would apply them to - until the mainstream medical community comes to agree with Dr. Schwartz, it's quite inappropriate to rewrite any pages on the basis of her opinions.

As I've said above, what happens on other pages is irrelevant to this one. What is relevant is following our rules. You trying to "educate the world" to an outside editor, looks a lot like soapboxing and promotion.

I have responded with increasing curtness due to your complete failure before yesterday to engage in any way despite my frequent citation of our rules and your failure to improve in editing.

I don't have a supervisor. I've done nothing but repeatedly cite the policies that guide my actions and should be guiding yours. Wikipedia is not a job, and people who edit wikipedia for a living really shouldn't be. I am perfectly fine with my actions, suggestions, statements and citations of policies and guidelines, there are many venues through which you can seek a review of both our actions - see dispute resolution. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I am just relieved now that I know where your comments are and am able to understand this process and will be following all rules accordingly. And I do apologize for the neither of us seeing them earlier. We will happily abide by the processes and hopefully make a go sooner rather than later for a start of the Erika Schwartz page. That said, she has worked extremely hard and your words were harsh and lacked respect. I show you respect and take responsibility for not knowing/answering your comments earlier. DrErikaTS (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Thank you.

If you haven't seen the huge orange box at the top of every page when you have a message, you should look into this immediately. And again, you should not be using an account with another person's name and change user names immediately; the account can be renamed to retain the history and contribution log but only one person should use the new name. If it is absolutely necessary for both of you to edit, you should have separate accounts. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't require the kind of "respect" that you seem to think is due your founder, and it certainly doesn't require that respect for her work be extended to her publicity apparatus. From Wikipedia's perspective, Erika Scwartz is a random person whose company decided to abuse Wikipedia for publicity purposes. We therefore treat the article about her exactly the same as any similar article, including the teenagers that create joke biographies about being "the best high school student in the world".

This may seem wildly inappropriate to you, since you think she somehow deserves more respect than other humans, but the fact is that we require the same thing from these kids as we do from you: independent, third-party reliable sources to support the article. Independent means that the person publishing the information is bound only by libel laws, and is free to publish unfavorable facts, comments, or points of view on Schwartz. Third-party means not written by Schwartz, or her staff, or lawyer, anyone controlled by her, from a press release you sent out, or anything ultimately originating from you. The definition of "reliable" is complex (click the link above to read the main page), but if you interpret it as "from a regular article in a typical newspaper or magazine", then you'll have a good enough notion. Whatever you can find in such sources is fair game for Wikipedia -- even if it says that Dr Schwartz was the best high school student in the world.

If there aren't enough independent, third-party reliable sources about Schwartz (Schwartz as a person, not merely mentioning her in passing, or briefly quoting her), then Schwartz's article will be deleted as not meeting the minimum criteria for a biography. Having a Wikipedia bio is generally considered a mixed blessing, so if she hasn't received enough media attention to qualify for an article, I hope that you'll consider the advantages as well as the disadvantages. You may wish to read WP:BLPHELP for more information.

WLU, the problem with the orange message box may be due to multiple users: if one user routinely checks the messages, then the other won't see the orange box. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Regards your final point - that's certainly a possiblity, and one that illustrates why it should be one person per one account. However, it would also mean at least one of them has read at least some of these messages. I endorse your other comments without reservation. In most cases I consider myself an unusually pedantic stickler for policies and guidelines, but I think most experienced editors would agree with you without batting an eye. I will venture one more comment - there seems like there is a lot to read in our suggestsions. This is true. A substantial reason for this is because the edits by this account to date has managed to trip up against a large number of wikipedia's taboos. The best way to resolve this is to follow our suggestions and read the myriad policies linked. A good place to start is still the simplified ruleset. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right, and I have been spending the majority of my day, reading everything and trying to absorb the rules and regulations and policies. I am feeling like I am making progress. I have changed my user name for one thing. I would appreciate your assistance as I continue. Thank you.DrErikaTS (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that you feel like you're making progress. Wikipedia is (overly) complicated, so feel free to ask me questions when you need help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you a new editor? Hopefully! Yes, so complicated for doing something good for people. THank you.LisaW24 (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia? No. New to this dispute? I've been watching it for less than a week, and commenting on occasion. Perhaps what you meant to ask was "Are you a different person than WLU and Verbal?" The answer is definitely YES -- but, like them, I support Wikipedia's policies. I'd be happy to help you with the "learning curve" aspects, but I have no interest in violating the policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Alternate account tag

I have placed the {{User Previous Acct}} tag on your user page. It acknowledges the existence of your previous account (even if it no longer exists). This way if other users click on previous signature blocks, they will understand why it redirects here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Erika Schwartz. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. You also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. Verbal chat 20:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have tried numerous times to discuss on talk pages the validity of additions to Dr ERika Schwartz's pages by editors. I've tried to discuss what is accurate and what is not, to explain what she does and what she does not do, to correct spelling and grammatical errors on her page done hastily and disrespectfully by other editors. How many times can I plead with editors to leave important information and not put up unqualified false information about Dr Schwartz and her work without just having to take it down due to NO ONE listening or caring....THank you.LisaW24 (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

We're all following wikipedia's policies. If you really want to have contributions that last, you should first find truly reliable sources and second familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines. The reason we keep citing all these policies is to inform you on the reasons for our edits and problems with yours. But ultimately the larger problem may be that you are editing wikipedia with a goal of providing information about "Dr. Erika" rather than building the totality of human knowledge. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:DrErikaSchwartzNatural.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:DrErikaSchwartzNatural.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Erika Schwartz for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Erika Schwartz 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/Erika Schwartz 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. Delta13C (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)