User talk:Faylinesong

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Faylinesong. 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 Tarek Najm, 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. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to make something clear. In one of your edit summaries, you referred to this as "his page" (Najm's). It is a page about him, not his page. There is no ownership of pages on Wikipedia; in fact, a person who an article is about is strongly discouraged from creating or contributing to a page about him- or herself (though if there are problems with content written by others, the subject of the article can delete negative content that isn't supported by citation of reliable sources, or else he can express his concerns on the article's Talk page). A Wikipedia article is an encyclopedia article, and should generally be written in a neutral way by, preferably, people with no personal stake in contents of the article. One thing Wikipedia is not is a place to post your resume/CV. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Tarek Najm, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. It doesn't matter if your boss is tell you to do this. Your boss is going to get you blocked from editing. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing AfD template

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Tarek Najm, you may be blocked from editing. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faylinesong, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

—Largo Plazo (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for persistent disruptive editing, including removing maintenance templates and "Articles for deletion" notices from an article. It is also clear that this is one of a group of accounts that exist for the sole purpose of editing an article on behalf of the person who is the subject of the article. This puts you in conflict with Wikipedia's guidelines on conflicts of interest, and risks a conflict with Wikipedia's policies on neutral points of view and promotion. An article must be written from a neutral point of view, and people with a personal involvement with the subject of the article should normally avoid editing it. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems likely that you have been editing Wikipedia in collaboration with other editors. If so, you need to be careful, because working with other editors who are only here to support controversial edits that you make could bring you into conflict with Wikipedia's policy on meatpuppetry. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Tarek Najm

I've moved your request to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 11, where it belongs; Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active is a bot-maintained page, and your request there was promptly overwritten. —Cryptic 23:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]