User talk:Dbmagazine

November 2014
Hello, Dbmagazine. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but 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 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 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. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

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.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
I strongly urge you to review the template above. Your edits are very promotional sounding and you use your own publication (or links to your store) as the sources. Primary sources are not allowed as a norm. Please review the policies about WP:V, WP:RS and WP:COI. Further violations will end up at one of the noticeboards and could result in your being blocked. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Response to edites for Decibel Magazine entry
Good day. I understand your concern regarding the information edited for the Decibel Magazine page, and how it could appear promotional. However, my intent is not to use Wikipedia as a source of promotion, but rather to provide more information regarding the magazine for anyone who sought to find it. The current Wikipedia entry has a variety of information that is inaccurate (i.e. staff members) or outdated (the presented cover image looks much different than the current magazine; even the logo is different). In addition, the page is pretty bare, and doesn't tell much about the magazine aside from the basics. As a result of this, I was simultaneously attempting to fix some of these errors and provide more information. However, I am doing my best to try to comply with the Wikipedia policies you messaged, and I thoroughly read the linked entries, especially regarding conflict of interest. That being said, I am hopeful to work towards a final entry that meets all of Wikipedia's standards, while at the same time providing more accurate and complete information regarding the magazine. If you could make some suggestions regarding the specific ways to get to this point it would be very much appreciated. Thank you. --Dbmagazine (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * First, stop using your own magazine as the main source. See WP:PRIMARY. Second, using your own store as a source is very questionable and makes it look like a sales pitch. Next, adding a ton of trivia, especially stuff that just sounds like puffery and advertising, is exactly what makes people start looking at a COI. Listing a lot of non-notable staff writers makes it look like you're making it a PR piece. To be blunt, much of what you've added is exactly what you shouldn't be adding. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)