User talk:Douglas G Williams

Conflict of interest
Please read the Conflict of interest guideline - we aren't here to provide free publicity for your book, and if you persist in spamming the polygraph article you are liable to be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Polygraph, you may be blocked from editing. MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that your edits are very similar to edits made to the same article a couple of months ago. Have you previously edited the article, before creating this account? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Polygraph, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Polygraph was changed by Douglas G Williams (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.866809 on 2014-08-19T01:09:12+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There are several problems with your editing, including the following.
 * 1) In several edits, such as this one, you are clearly trying to use Wikipedia to publicise your personal view. To describe something as "unscrupulous", for example, is to express a value judgement, as is describing people as "thugs". Stating that either you or someone else has expressed those opinions somewhere else, rather than just stating them as facts, does not detract from the nature of the edit as an attempt to publicise personal opinions.
 * 2) Repeatedly adding the same content to an article (or essentially the same, even if phrased differently) when others have shown that they disagree with your edits, known as edit warring, is unacceptable. Wikipedia works by collaboration, not by each individual editor repeating their preferred version, so that the most stubborn editor eventually gets his or her way. If you believe there are good reasons for disagreeing with other editors, then you should explain your reasons, and be willing to discuss them, with a view to trying to reach agreement, not just keep repeating your edits.
 * 3) In this edit, you changed content of an article from saying what the cited source says to saying something different. Before your change, the article referred to " individuals who stated that they were teaching methods on how to defeat a polygraph test", which is essentially what is said in the source, which refers to "instructors who claim they can teach job applicants how to pass lie detector tests". Your version attempts to give the impression that it is the U.S. federal government who "alleged" that those people were teaching methods on how to defeat a polygraph test; that is a very different thing from the people themselves "claiming" they do so.

If you continue to attempt to use Wikipedia to publicise your opinions and/or your book, to distort articles to make them say things you would like to be believed, rather than what is reported in reliable sources, to edit war, and to edit contrary to consensus, you will be very likely to be blocked from editing.

I also note that you have not answered my question above about earlier editing. I would still be glad to receive a response to it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)