User talk:Douglas Weiland

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Douglas Weiland. 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 Douglas Weiland, 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.

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. Theroadislong (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Your recent editing history at Douglas Weiland shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You are edit warring to include non neutral, unreferenced puffery please stop. Theroadislong (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Douglas Weiland
I've removed the deletion tag from this article, because you didn't actually say why you believe the article should be deleted. If you like, you can leave a message on my talk page explaining your reasoning, and I can complete the steps for you. Or you can post that reasoning on this page, or at Talk:Douglas Weiland, or at the deletion talk page (WT:AFD), and another editor will take care of it for you. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 21:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)