User talk:Bill robb

COI warning 1
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam); and,
 * 4) avoid breaching relevant 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 conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why your edits were reverted
In response to your "Still not sure why deleted" -- my reason was contained in my edit summary: "Rvt: MASSIVELY WP:COI edit, as well as removing a number of fact-tags without providing a ref & introducing unsourced material".

Now please stop:
 * 1) making WP:COI edits, cited solely to your own self-published material;
 * 2) introducing material without citing a source; and
 * 3) removing fact-tags from material which you haven't cited a source for.

Please read WP:COI. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking over your contributions...
...I cannot find anything that you have added that wasn't either cited to yourself (as either Bill Robb or W. Robb) or uncited. In addition to WP:COI, please read WP:V & WP:NOR (particularly WP:NOR). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to "In my view Hrafn has an axe to grind - he seems to delete all items relating back to an editor's books or articles even though this is accpetable academic practice." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia is not an orthodox academic publication, and of necessity does not follow "academic practice" in a number of matters.
 * 2) Your edits are in violation of WP:V (both generally and of WP:SELFPUB) and WP:NOR (both generally and WP:NOR).

Coi Warning 2
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam); and,
 * 4) avoid breaching relevant 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 conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines.

This guideline STRONGLY discourages you to make edits where you cite your own work, add links to things you are affiliated with, etc. etc. You are close to a 3RR (which is also true for Hrafn), but I do agree with his edits. I will strongly advice you to discuss the edits on the talkpage, and NOT to make them yourself. Referencing to own work is not strange in academics, but referencing only to your own work is frowned upon, as it is here. Your edits are quite close to only citing yourself/etc. Please read the policies and guidelines. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Blatant self-promotion
I note that, in one of your first edits on wikipedia, you describe yourself in Values education as "a leading expert in the field - Dr Bill Robb". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

OK:

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia.

Stop pushing your own links. This is a final warning, discuss and do not add your links or other information regarding YOURSELF anywhere in mainspace. Use the talkpages. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia.

You felt the necessity to undo reverts of your edits again, after this final warning. You are close to an indef block as a Spam-only account. Please reconsider your style, as suggested in several posts above. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)