|
Nomination of Bill Gillespie for deletion
edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bill Gillespie is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Gillespie until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
June 2013
edit
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Bill Gillespie does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Jgillespie8. 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 Bill Gillespie, 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.
- 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.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content 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 a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bill Gillespie, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 03:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Bill Gillespie shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN talk to me 03:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Bill Gillespie, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. discuss removal of referenced content on talk page. Be prepared to cite references for the changes you wish to make. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
coi
editJgillespie8, Everyone obviously suspects you have a COI because of the name on your account and the edits you've made have the appearance. If you wish to do this on the up and up, you may declare your COI and make suggestions on the talk page. Then I could go in judge indepdently whether those are proper edits. I've done this on another page of a journalist. If you were to be a COI, you may make non-controversial edits. However, the moment an editor reverses, you have to back off and let non-involved editors make the decisions. I would like to remove the COI template, but I can't as long as your status is up in the air. Crtew (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)