It appears that you hadn't activated your account, so none of your comments reached us. 

We've now activated it for you, so we will be able to review your comments going forward.

The comments in question all seem to be replies related to OESX. 

Please check your comment list, going through using 'filter by ticker' on the left-hand side to see them in context, and click 'report abuse' under any comments that you didn't write.

Nothing has been submitted to us. Check your Drafts to make sure that you completed the process fully.

The first link there, which mentions 17-20 shares was written in December 2016, before Frontier executed a 15-for-1 reverse split in July 2017. Does that explain the number disparity?

That link isn't to a Seeking Alpha article. Can you point us to which article on our site you said was incorrect?

Please can you send us the link to the article in question, so that we can investigate?

Thanks.

Your comment was nested as a reply under another comment which was removed as it was abusive. 

Yours was automatically deleted as a result. 

We're now reinstated your comment independent of the thread where you replied.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

This author appears to have only written blogs about MARK, not articles. Blog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, as is noted at the top of such posts. 

In addition, authors of blogs are able to delete comments from their posts themselves (this is not the case with articles).

Having said that, we do see plenty of negative comments on the blogs on this stock, which have not been removed.

We agree with you completely that comments on Seeking Alpha should focus on finance and investing. That's why we remove any purely political comments that come to our attention, and send the following notification where appropriate:

"While President Trump and his policies bring out strong emotions in people, for or against, we want to make sure that Seeking Alpha comment streams don't veer off-track into purely political discussions. To that end, we require that comments should be relevant to investing, and not simply political in nature.

Seeking Alpha’s Moderation team would like to ensure that article comments only focus on the analysis in the article. While you may strongly feel that your comment adds value, if it is not in sync with the article topic and diverts the discussion, then it contravenes our TOU."

You (and other readers) can help to keep our site clean of these sorts of comments by clicking on 'report abuse' under any comment that you feel is a violation of our terms. Since upwards of 10,000 comments a day are added to the site, it's not possible for us to police every one of them without the help of our community.

Together we can keep Seeking Alpha focused on the topics that users visit the site to read about.

Mercy, as head of the moderation team, I will reiterate what Daniel told you. Nobody at SA posted in your name or edited your comment (I have checked our records to be sure). We don't have an explanation for you here, sorry. If there is a comment you would like us to remove, please report it to us and we'll do so.

Best,

Yael