User talk:PRDirector

Copy and pasting

We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. See also Wikipedia:Copy-paste. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to grant license.

This edit [1] is a copyvio from DU. Even if it wasn't, please avoid unsupported adjectives like "state-of-the-art" or "flurished" without substantiating those claims.--Lucas559 (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Lamont School of Music, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.You claimed you were "removing outdated information", but what you actually did was remove lots of categories. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, PRDirector. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Lamont School of Music, 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 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.
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. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

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. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Lamont School of Music. Stop adding promotional, unsourced content. Due to your conflict of interest, you should not be directly editing the article, but suggesting changes at the article talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Lamont School of Music. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Pages

PRDirector, your best and most neutral approach is to post comments on the talk page. You are strongly discouraged from editing this article (read, do not). But you could suggest secondary sources on the talk page with impartial reviews or opinions of your school that other editors might want to incorporate. I understand your frustration since many other articles seem to be promotional; but they are not encyclopedic and might be reverted or deleted as well. Please smile knowing that the Wiki community is trying to do good for everyone - build an encyclopedia - is not picking on you.--Lucas559 (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]