User talk:Android1961

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Android1961, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Liberty Fund, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. It's reliably sourced and it is about the Liberty Fund. Dougweller (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Hello Android1961. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

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.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content 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. a13ean (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. "Information removed does not pertain to Liberty Fund" is not a valid reason for removing material where the source is clearly and explicitly discussing the Liberty Fund - in fact it's a misleading edit summary. Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Liberty Fund shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Please note that this is not an entitlement, you are not entitled to 3 reverts a day. Dougweller (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close connection

Android1961, do you have any connection to Liberty Fund? This would include being an employee or being contracted by Liberty Fund. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Liberty Fund

Andrew, thanks very much for your response on my talk page and apologies for not getting back to you yesterday. As has been explained above, you have a conflict of interest and other than very minor edits should not be directly editing the article but suggesting changes on the talk page. You state on my talk page "I was recently advised from our President of the company that there is content on the Liberty Fund Wikipedia page that is incorrect. Someone outside of the Foundation has added material about a book to our conference section. Liberty Fund does not publish the book or is affiliated with the book in any way whatsoever." This is a basic misunderstanding of how Wikipedia functions. Our articles are based on what reliable sources (see WP:RS and WP:VERIFYhave said about a subject and should cover all majority and significant minority points of view. We can use what a person or organisation says about themselves but we must also use what other reliable sources have to say about that organisation or person (and if there are none then probably we shouldn't have an article about it, but that's a different issue and clearly doesn't apply here). As it stands, the article only has one independent source commenting on it, and that is the bit of the article you were trying to remove. Obviously the Liberty Fund has its critics, and an article that didn't reflect that would not meet one of our core polices, neutral point of view. So I have to ask you not to try to remove that again, although you are of course free to discuss it on the talk page. There are venues on Wikipedia where you can object to this and if you feel strongly about it I'll point you to them, but I'd be surprised if you got agreement to remove it. Note that it does attribute the comments rather than simply make them in Wikipedia's voice. Finally, and to make it transparent (although it's clear in the history of the article), I was the editor who added that as without it it clearly doesn't meet our NPOV policy. You might want to see my comments at WP:COIN also. Dougweller (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]