User talk:JAWW123

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Shane Salerno, 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, 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 a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Rees11 (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shane

The article will be fine, he is imo notable and the best thing to to is to set it free and it will be ok, half the content may get deleted but half with then be kept as good and then it will be refined, if we are lucky it will be better tomorrow than today, regards.Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edits

Hello, As you have noticed I am not the only one who has mentioned that the page you are furiously editing/monitoring/protecting needs work. My suggestion remains to slow down and familiarize yourself with wikipedia policies. Over two years ago someone posted concerns on the article's talk page that it has an uncanny resemblance to the IMDB bio. Now, that alone raises suspicions when one is working on a biography page. But the tone of the page is more promotion then informative. So yes, the article reads like an advertisement either written by the subject himself or someone associated with him. It's what wikipedia tries to avoid. Moreover, I posted the page on the conflict of interest board because, instead of making blatant accusations (as you did suggesting I was a sockpuppet) without anything but flimsy circumstantial evidence, I'm asking that more experiences editors take a look. And from the responses I have had, I'm not alone in thinking there's a conflict of interest going on here with your edits and the previous person who edited the page. Is hearsay from an unnamed PA regarding a parastic work that hasn't been released considered a source? Perhaps, but not a reliable one. Does every project needs a seperate header? No. There's plenty of examples of good biographies on this site, so take the time to look. Something's wrong when a screenwriter not many people have heard of has more accolades listed and seperate sections for efforts with waning marks of distinction then that of Marcel Proust. You did a good job of reformatting the references, but you should know the last thing I'm doing is vandalizing a page, so please be careful when using such terms in your edit summaries. And Good Luck. Jim Steele (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JimSteele

All of my interactions with the charming Mr. Steele have been in regards to Salinger articles, as I think you know, and they were all a number of months ago. Since then, he and I have not crossed paths, and I hope to keep it that way. Your contention that he is associated in some fashion with Salinger's agency is very intriguing. Certainly, the comment on his user page gives one pause, since it is so unusual. However, we would need more evidence before going to the COI board with a complaint. It is a singular obsession of his, to be sure, and he plays fast and loose with the rules around here. Thank you for bringing all of this to my attention. I will look into the matter further when time allows. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]