User talk:Alan Stenberg

November 2012[edit]

Hello, I'm Sue Rangell. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Jay Westervelt, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jay Westervelt. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Jay Westervelt, you may be blocked from editing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Semperfly, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand why "Alan Stenberg" is continually remanded against vandalism (including a "last warning") with no real action. This evident sock-puppet appears to be acting on a personal dislike for the subject Jay Westervelt. Editing Dr. Westervelt's biology "career" to biology "avocation" without credible cause seems an obvious act of vandalism. References to Dr. Westervelt's career are cited on the page in question.

What accreditation does he have? Is this a profession or a hobby? Where is the "Doctorate" to back the tittle you just used with him? If that is presented, then there is no question to his "Biological" qualification. Kimocarew (talk)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Talk:Jay Westerveld. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop omitting edit summaries[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Jay Westerveld does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! JFHJr (㊟) 15:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very clear conflicts of interest[edit]

Hello, Alan Stenberg. 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 Jay Westerveld, 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.

Hello, Alan Stenberg. 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 Glenmere mansion, 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.

To be clear, you've produced several non-neutral edits regarding Jay Westerveld, omitting edit summaries. Your edits to Jay Westerveld are clearly contentious and reflect your inability to be impartial or fair about subjects with whom you have some real life involvement. You've also left mouthy, unconstructive comments at the article talk page. None of these things you do at the one article is required to better the encyclopedia. In fact, it seems to be the only topic you edit here. Stop it. JFHJr (㊟) 15:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment[edit]

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits, such as the one you made to User talk:Semperfly, potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. Just to be clear, this is what I'm talking about. JFHJr (㊟) 18:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for attempting to harass other users. 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. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]