User talk:DallasSecurity

I have to ask

Hello DallasSecurity. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Bill Conner, 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. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know the individual but thought I was following the proper guidelines. I will go through them again and familiarize myself more in-depth. I was slightly confused on what is considered resume-ish and what is biographical as when it comes to work I would think some of that would run together. DallasSecurity (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I propose changes to the discussion page, should i create a new section for this?, and not the actual article would you review with me. I truly was not trying to get updates passed on the sly, with that said my own niavete is not a defense either. I have basically taken it as is now and made some minor changes throughout and have removed all talking, awards, etc... Thanks again for the help and guidance. DallasSecurity (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]