User talk:BookBeliever

January 2023

Hello, I'm 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.

See [1] for copied content.

2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BookBeliever. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan,

I tried to update a Wikipedia page for me that someone created years ago. A lot of the information is simply outdated, especially the link to my website--but also a lot of my biographical information. I've never used Wikipedia before and didn't know my edits violated the Wikipedia policy.

If my edits are wrong, can someone just delete everything I added today? All the instructions seem so complicated, so this reply might be in the wrong place. I wasn't trying to do any "disruptive" or wrong. Just trying to update my bio material. But if that is wrong to do, can someone just delete all my edits for today? Then remove the warning that is currently on that page? I will also try to add this message to an unblock request--but, again, I'm not sure if I'm doing that wrong, too.

Thanks for any help. Best regards, Patricia Raybon BookBeliever (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. DanCherek (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

BookBeliever (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Good day. I tried to update a Wikipedia page for me that someone created years ago. A lot of the information is simply outdated, especially the link to my website--but also a lot of my biographical information. I've never used Wikipedia before and didn't know my edits violated the Wikipedia policy. :If my edits are wrong, can someone just delete everything I added today? All the instructions seem so complicated, so this reply might be in the wrong place. I wasn't trying to do any "disruptive" or wrong. Just trying to update my bio material. But if that is wrong to do, can someone just delete all my edits for today? Then remove the warning that is currently on that page? I will also try to add this message to an unblock request--but, again, I'm not sure if I'm doing that wrong, too. :Thanks for any help. Best regards, Patricia Raybon : BookBeliever (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblocked per below. DanCherek (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Patricia, thanks for the response. I placed the block primarily because the previous notices above were initially not being acknowledged. I am willing to lift the block once you give Wikipedia:Conflict of interest a read, and commit to following best practices for editors with a conflict of interest. This includes using the talk page of an article (Talk:Patricia Raybon) to propose edit requests, and making sure that those edit requests are supported by citations to reliable, independent sources. Use the {{Request edit}} template to request changes on the talk page. Your previous additions to the article were rather promotionally worded; this tone is more appropriate for your website (I have corrected the link now, by the way) than Wikipedia. DanCherek (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dan,

Thank you so much. When I received your first message about interrupting, I thought it was automatically generated. I didn't realize you were a real person reaching out to me! I'm so grateful to know that you are, indeed, real. (Smile.) Thank you also for your help and your explanation of everything. I support Wikipedia annually with a donation, but I'd never edited anything before. I hear what you're saying about the tone of wording being appropriate, and making sure that it is. Finally, a big thanks for correcting the link to my website. I appreciate that so much! Also, thanks for letting me know I can use my talk page to reach out and get answers or to request an edit. I had no idea! Thank you. I will go now to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and commit to following best practices for editors with a conflict of interest! You have schooled me well! Thank you so much! Kindest thanks, Patricia BookBeliever (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I have now unblocked your account. Thanks for your understanding. I've restored some sourced information about your books to the article, and the article and its talk page are on my watchlist so I'm happy to help with future talk page requests if you'd like. Just remember that we typically look for at least one independent secondary source, such as a newspaper article, to support any biographical details rather than rely on people's personal websites. That's why much of the text in the article is now sourced to things like independent reviews (e.g., Publishers Weekly) or newspaper clippings. Finally, you are free to remove any of the above discussions from your talk page if you'd like, once you have read them. DanCherek (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]