User talk:Nonstop111

December 2012

Hello, I'm Thebestofall007. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to MuscleTech because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thebestofall007 (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nonstop111. 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 MusclePharm, 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.--Yankees76 ^Talk 02:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.--Quarte t 14:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Please re-read the above warning pertaining to conflict of interest. Edits such as this [1] will not be tolerated. Please note that Wikipedia is is an encyclopedia, not a vanity press, or forum for advertising or self-promotion. It is also not a place for paid advocacy. Adding unsourced copy where the first paragraph contains the phrase "timing, outcomes, costs, expenses and time expenditures by the Company’s management and others on behalf of the Company" is clearly not encyclopedic, and any such edits will continue to be reverted.

I would strongly discourage you from directly editing the article for MusclePharm, and instead propose any new edits on the article's talk page. Note that COI editing is strongly discouraged, and COI editors causing disruption may be blocked. If you continue disruptively edit the MusclePharm article by blanking sourced content and replacing it with advertising, corporately prepared material, or any other unsourced copy, you'll be reported to Wikipedia adminstrators.--Quarte t 14:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Yankees76 ^Talk 18:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at MusclePharm. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing.--Yankees76 ^Talk 18:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at MusclePharm shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Yankees76 ^Talk 18:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to discuss your edits on the talk page. Have you even read your own edits or the warnings above? Your material not encyclopedic. It's not an improvement over what is currently there. Not to mention the copy isn't even sourced properly and it's written like a lawyer wrote it. The additional material about the company that you've added does not contain any reliable sources. This is without even mentioning the material you're simply removing without a valid reason (saying it's "outdated" is not valid) . If it's outdated, update with the outcomes of the legal proceedings - don't simply delete it. And why are you removing the disclosure that the awards this company has "won" are from the website owned by the CMO's brother? Wikipedia is not a website for MusclePharm PR. --Yankees76 ^Talk 19:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of Indefinite for Purely promotional editing, as you did at MuscleTech. 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 adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]