User talk:HeslinJ

Hello, HeslinJ. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Marsha Mehran, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

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.
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. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT WP:EDITWAR

Please do not continue to WP:EDITWAR on Marsha Mehran. Your behavior is a violation of Wikipedia policies. You are headed for a block if you continue. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marsha Mehran

Hi. Please engage on the talk page as to why you believe Qworty and I are vandalising the article. As you should be able to see, we are both using valid sources which back up all claims made in the article - some of the claims are backed up by multiple and independant sources.

Also consider your position carefully as per COI - there is actually nothing wrong with having an interest in an article - so long as you declare it, and behave accordingly. Simply declaring that sources are wrong[1], yet not offering any reasons or alternative sources will not endear yourself to the project, and may ultimately get yourself blocked. At the very least it will mean that your edits come under greater scrutiny than usual, and so borderline edits that had you kept a lower profile would be accepted may be reverted. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please give us your feedback

Do you have a response to this [2]? We need to hear the reasons behind your actions. Wikipedia is edited per WP:CONSENSUS--you can't just impose your own ideas on an article. Please read WP:OWN and WP:RS. And then please give us your thoughts on the article's talk page. Thank you! Qworty (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HeslinJ, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi HeslinJ! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Marsha Mehran

The lockdown will soon expire on this page. Before you return to editing it, please discuss your intentions and reasonings on the talk page, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the standard Wikipedia practice when it comes to sourced material. Please discuss any changes here [3]. You have to make your arguments for why you believe the material violates Wikipedia policies, and which policies you think it violates. If you simply remove sourced information over and over again, as you've done in the past, not only will the sourced information eventually be restored, but you are headed for a block. Qworty (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HeslinJ for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]