User talk:AzazelswolfsuperPUAwithacherryontop

Please see WP:OUTING with regard to this edit. Plastikspork (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest policy
Hello AzazelswolfsuperPUAwithacherryontop. 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 following the 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:


 * 1) 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.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * 4) 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. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Richard La Ruina. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop adding poorly referenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To clarify the reference does have major problems:


 * First, there is no header information provided leading to the question is this e-mail really from Richard La Ruina or someone pretending to be him? That alone creates Verifiability issues.


 * Second there is the WP:SPS issue: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP." (sic)
 * Even if the Verifiability was good this would kill any idea of using the reference.


 * Finally, the reference easily qualifies under WP:NOTGOSSIP never mind the more restrictive WP:BLPGOSSIP.


 * That is why the reference is not usable; its very iffy on the Verifiability side of things, WP:SPS effectively forbids its use, and WP:NOTGOSSIP similarly throws it out.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I hope you don't mind if I try to keep the discussion here.

No, Ross Jeffries doesn't quality for WP:SPS which states, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Once again, it comes down to WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ronz, you're confusing rather than clarifying things. Ross Jeffries does quality for WP:SPS but that policy expressly also forbids the use of "self-published sources as third-party sources about living people".  In other words WP:SPS is a Catch-22 policy as far as WP:BLP is concerned--by qualifying for use under the policy the source is expressly forbidden from being used!  And as a side note take this to the article's talk page as that is where issues should be talked about.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

March 2013
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Strauss has been open about all of what I've said, and have appeared on his own site and mailing list. Which specific items do you need references for, and I will provide them.AzazelswolfsuperPUAwithacherryontop (talk)
 * Please follow WP:COI and WP:BLP. If you have questions as to how to go about doing so, ask them. Wikipedia is not a venue for you to take shots at your friends, colleague, or competitors. --Ronz (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Chicago Smooth/New Alan Roger Currie article
Hello AzazelswolfsuperPUAwithacherryontop, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Chicago Smooth/New Alan Roger Currie article, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's a draft of a quite-possibly notable individual. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. D P  20:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)