User talk:EdBedden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Possible conflict of interest[edit]

Information.svg If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Marc Leepson, 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 from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. 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 conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you.


Information.svg You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you.

Coat of arms of George Washington[edit]

Your edits to that article contain some interesting information, but it seems to be interlarded with dogmatic personal pontificating, and the overall result is not too useful to Wikipedia in that particular form. Please go to Talk:Coat of arms of George Washington, where the matter can be suitably discussed. AnonMoos (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Every word in my edits was taken from the well-sourced book Flag: An American Biography. I even footnoted it. I'll change it a bit, but I'm not sure what you mean by "dogmatic personal pontificating" since no opinions are expressed. Everything is based on facts gleaned from solid historical research. EdBedden (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you say that the author of the book rejects the idea that the coat of arms had an influence on the flag, instead of making Wikipedia speak with the author's voice, to start with? There are also structural problems, when a large chunk of text (much of which only has a tangential relationship with the subject of the article) is introduced without any subsection header or other useful internal organization... AnonMoos (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I cut back on some of the text and I believe that it flows from the previous paragraph, which also deals with the idea that the coat of arms somehow inspired the Stars and Stripes.EdBedden (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Marc Leepson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ], and [[author]]. His books include ''What So Proudly We Hailed: Francis Scott Key, A Life'' (Palgave Macmillan, 2014; ''Lafayette: Lessons in Leadership from the Idealist General'' (Palgrave

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)