User talk:Bogbadger

February 2010
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for spam, advertising, or promotion. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for advertising Graham 87 03:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * --Ronz (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest policy
If you are affiliated with 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, 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; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with 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 a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack in the green
Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Have you looked at WP:SOAP, which is linked above? WP:IINFO, which is on the same page, also applies. My concern when you added all the links was that once again you appear more interested in promoting websites than contributing encyclopedic information.

If you hadn't added those links, the information could still have been removed per WP:V, because it contained no independent, reliable sources verifying the information and suggesting the information was important enough to deserve mention in the article. --Ronz (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the information, minus the links. Note that this information partially duplicates what is already in the article. Because of this duplication, extra sources should be found to justify the detailed information. However, to start, try to find sources that meet WP:V and WP:RS criteria, while avoiding WP:SELFPUB problems.

No offense, but the problem with citing your website isn't just your conflict of interest, but that it is self-published by someone that likely wouldn't be considered a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it again, given the other discussions I've had about the article. Best we centralize further discussions on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)