Cruzerinthecruz

I have respected your wishes and do not attribute Mr. Lane's choice of not running for re-election directly because of the Valentine Day Card controversy. However, I still mention this as it is important for readers to know and can be one of the instances where Mr. Lane feels he was hounded by the press. In fact, it is mentioned in the same reference you cite.

Mr. H.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.161.221 (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2014‎

Thank you very much... It appears that we are on the right track. Councilmember Lane expressed his appreciation for your flexibility. He did ask me to add a note that he was not involved in the Culwell card. He thought the recent edit seemed to blur the distinction between the card he signed to you and the one his colleague sent to Culwell. Again, thank you. CC Cruzerinthecruz (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

April 2015

Your recent editing history at Don Lane (Santa Cruz) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Keri (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Cruzerinthecruz. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Don Lane (Santa Cruz), 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. Keri (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)