User talk:Tsasouth
March 2015
[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at The Salvation Army. Your edits have been reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. The article is maintained and "owned" by Wikipedia, not the Salvation Army. If you have valid reasons why the content you want added should stay, please discuss on the article talk page. Just know that conflict of interest may also apply and be a factor in any discussion leading to consensus. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to The Salvation Army. Amaury (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Tsasouth. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but 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 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding content about the Salvation Army
[edit]As per our policies and guidelines, we don't have any real objections to editors who might have a conflict of interests as per WP:COI from editing articles provided that the edits they make meet standard editing requirements. In this case, I suppose that would include information specifically identifying the sources, preferably those that are either independent of the Salvation Army itself although in many cases internal or official documents are acceptable, which can verify the accuracy of the information to be included. It is also best to ensure that the content of the article is presented as neutrally as possible. Also, for editors who do have a conflict of interests, like being employees or affiliates with organizations, it is generally considered "best practices" to indicate on the article talk page the information that one wants to include in the article and the sources which specifically verify that information. I hope upon the end of the current block expiring you return and propose the changes you wish made on the relevant article talk pages; doing so tends to eliminate any complications. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Email received from Tsasouth
[edit]In the interest of full disclosure, the email I received from this user is here:
8:33 AM
Dear Winkelvi, I am the <position redacted for privacy> for The Salvation Army. We appreciate your support and effort in keeping our wiki page updated and free of cyber vandals. However the changes made were by Official Salvation Army personnel. We would like for this information to remain.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me directly at <email address redacted@for privacy>
Thank you!
<name redacted for privacy>
<position redacted for privacy>
The Salvation Army
As I stated at the SPI for the User:Tsasouth account, I think they are just totally unfamiliar with Wikipedia, how it works, and the fact that the article on The Salvation Army is owned by Wikipedia and they don't have special rights or privileges in regard to it. There appears to be a misconception on their part that because the article is about The Salvation Army that TSA eomployees have a right and say as to what is included in the article and what is not. Hopefully, discussion with them will take place at this talk page during the edit warring block so we can discuss and help them better understand policies and guidelines. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)