User talk:Ceekay215

Welcome!
Hello, Ceekay215, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Possible conflict of interests
Hello Ceekay215. 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 Alec Baldwin, 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 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 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. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

January 2014
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Charles Denham, you may be blocked from editing. You have an unusual edit history and seem to know a lot about Wikipedia for a new user.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   01:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess if being here since 2010 marks me as a new user, I do know a lot. My editing is not disruptive, but yours reflects an attempt to inject POV. NPOV FAQ If you continue to do so, we can submit the article for arbitration, and review the entirety of your edits and any possible COI. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or online news site.

Please review the talk page, where I have been attempting to engage the other user in a constructive dialogue.

Charles Denham
I have moved the second paragraph out of the lead and into the body of the article as per WP:MOS and left a post on the article's talk page. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   04:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that we have all come to a consensus, would you consider withdrawing your WP:3RR report of User:bluerasberry? They did not violate the 3RR policy, and it would be a token of good faith if you simply withdrew it. As you see, discussion amongst we editors can eventually bring us all to the same place. —Josh3580talk/hist 05:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I removed the 3RR warning I gave you earlier. —Josh3580talk/hist 05:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, is there any procedure beyond marking it withdrawn or erasing it? Ceekay215 (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You can delete the entire section, or if you feel uncomfortable doing so, I would be happy to do it for you, and note in the edit summary that you withdrew the report. I sincerely apologize if you felt I was against you, it wasn't personal at all. I pray you see where I was coming from. My issues were never with the factuality of your claims, only in your methods. —Josh3580talk/hist 05:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I truly appreciate your outreach. I'll do it now. Thank you. Ceekay215 (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
—Josh3580talk/hist 04:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

False warnings
Giving inappropriate warnings of other editors does not sit well here. You have given two editors warnings for edit-warring when it is crystal clear they were not doing so. Giving inappropriate userspace warnings can be seen as harassment. You should remove these warnings. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   05:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you would read above, please, you would note that I have already agreed to this, and was asking about the correct procedure. Having said that, and specifically with regards to BlueRasberry, while you may argue the warning was premature, it was decidedly not false. Ceekay215 (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Two reverts in 24 hours is not edit-warring. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   05:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please undo your removal of the 3RR report. It is up to an admin to make whatever closure they think proper. EdJohnston (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read josh3580 request above that I consider removing it and instructions. Would you and he please hash out the appropriate answer? Ceekay215 (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to undo the removal of the 3RR report, then make a comment at the top of the report that you are withdrawing. You can't just pull the report in its entirety. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   05:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's exactly what I was asking before. Thank you. Ceekay215 (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That was my fault, EdJohnston (talk) &  Flat Out   let's discuss it  . I really did advise him to remove the entire section. I'm sorry if that was incorrect. All parties had come to an agreement, and I figured that was the best path in the interest of good faith. If it was incorrect, again, completely my fault'''. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)