User talk:Pcb02144

Questions

hello, are you removing the referenced controversy items for the Ed Blakely article, and inserting general-praise in their place? why? Mdelvecchio99 (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hey man - why do you keep editing the Ed Blakely page, eg improperly putting awards into Controversy section?

Mdelvecchio99 (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dude...do you work for Blakely? why do you keep removing any non-flattering content related to Blakely, such as the "Controversy" section?.Mdelvecchio99 (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI conflict of interest guideline

see also: Wikipedia is not a soapbox and What may I not have on my user page?

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia in Ed Blakely or other articles, 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. – Athaenara ✉ 21:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ed Blakely

Thank you for your efforts in improving the Ed Blakely article. Responding to a request for third opinion, I found much of the contentious issue stemmed from your recent, sweeping rewrite of the article as a whole. I have reverted the article to its previous form and begun contacting all editors involved to offer input in improving it from there.

While you certainly included a great deal of specific information relating to the subject, please remember the importance of adhering to policies regarding biographies of living persons and original research. Even if we have accurate first-hand knowledge of a subject's details, it cannot be included without a proper secondary source. This applies to all articles on wikipedia and is particularly significant in those relating to living persons. I don't doubt that your efforts were well-intentioned and if you would like help in incorporating some of the material you added before, feel free to submit any questions or concerns on the article's talk page. Additionally, if you require more specific assistance, you're welcome to contact me and I'll do everything I can to help out. Thanks!
--K10wnsta (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the talkback I posted here a couple months ago because you already addressed it and I didn't want you to think it was somehow tied in to the following comment:

PCB, I don't know when you last stopped by, but I wanted to mention that I did a pretty thorough analysis of the Blakely article and was unable to identify any clearly biased statements in it. If you still feel there are questionably-worded claims in the article, please post an example on my talk page and I'll see what I can do about it. You can also tag uncited claims with citation requests (type {{citation-needed|July 2010}} following the statement in the edit window). Either way, my offer for assistance is always open.
--K10wnsta (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]