User talk:Ed Pittock

August 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Long term care insurance. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. CliffC (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, see: If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write   below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia: I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Gurt Posh (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Policy on neutral point of view
 * Guideline on spam
 * Guideline on external links
 * Guideline on conflict of interest
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and how to develop articles
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * Article wizard for creating new articles
 * Manual of Style

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Estate planning and several other articles. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Gurt Posh (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome! I have some ideas about ways we can improve Wikipedia.
Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia. I see some of your edits have been reverted lately. That's not good for anyone because it takes two people's time up unnecessarily. I would like to explain a couple things to you that maybe you don't understand about being here. This edit of yours said "The CBO points our that many boomers could be greatly affected by - and should plan for - future changes in federal retirement benefits." But that style is could be improved. We don't write as citizens of a nation for other citizens of that nation. Doing so creates systemic bias. Instead, consider "The CBO recommends that American baby boomers should plan for future changes in federal retirement benefits". Then there is the source. You added "Society of Certified Senior Advisors (2009). "Working with Seniors Health, Financial and Social Issues". But that's not enough information. I'm not saying, but we need more information. I have a question too. I've found a 2005 book online, but not a 2009 one. Where can other Wikipedians access this source? I've noticed you've used this source repeatedly. That's not a problem in and of itself. But please consider this: if two sources say the same thing, while one is online, and the other is offline, we'd prefer (in an ideal article) to use sources that are accessible online, as that makes verifying the information more efficient. It also helps with peer review. In a peer reviewed article we check each other to make sure this problem doesn't happen: The source you like is a book and has many pages. If you continue to use it as a source here, please understand that a page number is needed to prevent the problem of.

According to Wikipedia, a conflict of interest occurs when "advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia". And here's a small list of ways to avoid a conflict of interest. I say that because it looks like you might have a conflict of interest related to a your work and/or interests. But I'm here to help. I'm here so you can know of ways to improve Wikipedia. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Jesanj (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It's worth pointing out also that a spam report has been filed here. --CliffC (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions?
Let me know if you have any specific questions. Here is some background on spam. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)