User talk:Die death1

Welcome!

Hello, Die death1, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

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! -- Jytdog (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi "Die death1" - not a great username, btw. You clearly have some beef with The National Society of Leadership and Success‎ outside of Wikipedia. Whatever that relationship is, it is a relationship that is external to Wikipedia, and you cannot carry that into Wikipedia. There are two key policies you need to be aware of: WP:SOAPBOX (please read that) and WP:NPOV (please read that). If you cannot be neutral, and write objectively about something in Wikipedia, you should recuse yourself from editing about that here. Please read WP:COI. (I am not a fan of the organization - it seems pretty scummy. Our article can describe bad things, but they must be stated neutrally, and like everything in Wikipedia, must be based on reliable sources. Please do also read WP:RS which describes the kinds of sources that are reliable.)

Finally, whatever is in Wikipedia needs to be directly verifiable from reliable sources. You cannot draw your own conclusions - please read WP:OR.

Thanks Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The National Society of Leadership and Success. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Talk page is here: Talk:The National Society of Leadership and Success. You get to it by clicking on the "Talk" tab of the upper left corner of the article. If you do not start talking, I am going to start the process of getting you blocked from Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you just edit from here. So I found good information on the company's finances directly from the company's self maintained website. The information may seem adverse to the company, but it is coming from the company--I'm referring to the limited amount of scholarships. Prospective members of this organization look to Wikipedia to provide this financial data which is why I created a finance section. Die death1 (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am about out of patience with you. We give new editors slack but in your passion to add negative content to this article you are violating almost every Wikipedia policy. Use the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formal COI notice

Hello, Die death1. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship 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 ensuring their edits are verified by 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.
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. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

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. Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User:Jytdog. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Your recent editing history at The National Society of Leadership and Success shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Brianhe (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

stop posting on my page and that is a direct order.Die death1 (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at The National Society of Leadership and Success, you may be blocked from editing. You cannot stop the deletion discussion by removing the tag. Please leave it in place so all editors, whether they favor deleting or keeping the article, know the discussion is going on. —C.Fred (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All that said, the Finances section that you re-added while removing the AfD template, you've attempted to add multiple times. Would you like to remove that section yourself and discuss the addition at the talk page, rather than risk a block for violating the three revert rule? —C.Fred (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

let me think about it

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

In addition to the other problems with your editing, mentioned above, I see that at least three times you have changed another editor's comment in a discussion, to deliberately misrepresent what that editor had said. I strongly advise you to take a different approach when the block is over, not using dishonest methods such as that, not attacking other editors, and switching to behaving as though you are attempting to cooperate with other editors, even when you disagree with them, rather than as though you regard Wikipedia as a battleground, in which your purpose is to attack and fight anyone you don't see eye to eye with. I will also advise you that in view of the extent and nature of your disruptive editing, you were lucky to get such a short block: if you continue in the same way a much longer block is likely, perhaps even an indefinite one. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]