User talk:Gbradt
October 2009
[edit]I most certainly have a vested interest in the field of onboarding having written three books on the subject. At the same time, having written three books on the subject, I have a lot of knowledge about it. Certainly plan to continue to be part of the discussion, exercising great caution to base my comments on published sources in the public domain. Would urge others to push back if I go to far. Look forward to the debate.Gbradt (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
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. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should 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;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Please familiarize yourself with relevant 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 conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gbradt,
I see you have already received advice on how to conduct your editing where there is a clear Conflict of Interest. Despite this I and others have tonight reversed several of your edits where you have added a reference to a book by George Bradt and Mary Vonnegut which it would be reasonable to assume from your Username you are closely connected to. Please reread the guidelines which have been linked to above and seek advice if required. Failure to follow these guidelines and continue to edit as you have today will result in further and more formal warnings and/or to you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please heed this polite advice. Tmol42 (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:Gbradt
[edit]User:Gbradt, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gbradt and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Gbradt during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Orange Mike | Talk 00:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of George Bradt
[edit]
An editor has nominated George Bradt, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Bradt and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words. I wish that I had more time to work on it. I think that most employers make it up as they go along, with the trial-and-error method (or more accurately, the trial-and-error-and-repair method) of bringing in new employees. I'd say that you've prevented more disasters than you'll ever know. Mandsford (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I deleted your addition because it appeared to be information guiding a reader on the best way to conduct/construct an interview. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and your reference to guidance from a specific self-help book may constitute spam. Please discuss any concerns at the article's talk page. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 16:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Inappropriate external links
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added such as to the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onboarding do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Article
[edit]I looked at the article and it hasn't been retagged. I also wasn't the closer of the AfD. Joe Chill (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Onboarding
[edit]- George, I agree with you that this is someone using the article as an excuse to promote their consultation services. I have no objection to summarizing it in the same one-sentence manner as other systems (their framework is 3 C's and a D) and removing the direct link to Kaiser Associates or whatever it's called. Mandsford 14:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)