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.
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. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
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. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Not bad behavior, just inexperience.
I'm sorry, I don't add much to Wikipedia -- just few lines on the Fiosole, Italy entry, pointing out that Robert Browning mentions it in his poem, "Andrea del Sarto." I had trouble even figuring out how to leave this comment. I don't understand why the subjects of articles have "conflicts" while the anonymous individuals inserting negative material -- nobody ever seems to take it upon themselves to insert something positive -- are impartial. What's the defense of that? Just because there are more than one? That isn't the platinum bar of truth either.
Hi Newzpaperman: I believe that our policies of living persons sides with you on the issue of the final paragraph that (I feel) you were right to delete. It would be best to begin a discussion on the talk page of the article, as our form of "paper trail". I'm a little surprised people are insisting on putting that paragraph in, as our enforcement of BLP has become stronger over the years, and I think that putting it in grossly overweights its significance in the biography of a writer who clearly has a large body of notable work. Note that I'm just one of many volunteers here, and may be overruled, but in response to your question in your edit summary here -- "aren't there any adults on Wikipedia?" -- yes there are, but they're not always watching. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about your experiences here. Some of those users' comments really bug me. I'll try to keep an eye on your article to make sure things don't get out of hand. By the way, I've always loved your columns, especially the ones about the phone book! Zagalejo^^^ 00:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Zagalejo. I suppose I just should tune it all out -- that's what my wife suggests. But the Wikipedia page is such a prominent hit, I can't let it end with me being a wife-beater. It's strange, last time I went through this -- years ago -- there wasn't this demi priesthood of Wikipedians debating policy like cardinals during the Inquisition discussing whether I needed to be buried or burned.
I contributed something to Wikipedia -- even though I feel like I'm digging the grave of professional journalism. The town of Fiesole is in Robert Browning's "Andrea del Sarto:" -- I went to Wikipedia to learn what I could about it, and its appearance in the poem wasn't mentioned. I thought it should be there, so added a line. I admit, I was proud of that. Anyway, thanks for the defense.
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)