User talk:Arom1221

August 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding or significantly changing content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Barry Larkin, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. — Jeff G. ツ 02:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Board Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Indrian (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barry Larkin. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear - the edit warring isn't the only issue here; the information you continue to add is a violation of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. If the information is restored you will be blocked from editing, and if you switch to an IP address to make the edits it will be blocked as well. Wikipedia is not the venue to play out your personal vendetta against Mr. Larkin. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 22:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The info I have provided is very true and accurate. Ill update it with more details if needed but you all act like what I'm posting im lying about.

August 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Barry Larkin, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Barry Larkin was changed by Arom1221 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.903634 on 2011-08-22T03:26:28+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Barry Larkin. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 03:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Truth

What I have posted i have told the truth and posted my proof yet this cant be added. Why are you all working for Mr larkin or something. Arom1221 (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPOV. Your edits are not from a neutral point of view, which is a policy on Wikipedia. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 03:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted Facts and this is not my opinion on Mr Larkin. If it was my opinion I would go into more details. This made the major paper in Cincinnati. Arom1221 (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way you are wording the statement is not neutral. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 03:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is Mr Larkin or someone who works for him. Arom1221 (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why you would think that. I have been an editor for several years, and never have I edited that article, as you can check yourself on the article's history. Have you read WP:NPOV yet? If you actually do, you should understand why your edits are being reverted. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 03:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is there anyway it can be worded to sound more neutral. This is the 1st edit I have ever made on wikipedia Arom1221 (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it could certainly be made more neutral, but looking at it again, I'm not sure it should be included at all. When you take the individual as a whole, a random promise not fulfilled doesn't seem particularly relevant in the scheme of things. Feel free to start a discussion on Talk:Barry Larkin though to see what others think. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 04:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i found a way to rewrite this so its under the guidelines Arom1221 (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 04:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arom1221. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

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 following the 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. — Jeff G. ツ 04:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]