User talk:GWalcher

February 2024
Hello, I'm ThaddeusSholto. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to James Dobson have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

And please read wp:brd you have been reverted, make a case at the talk page as to why this is not wp:UNDUE. Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I did not understand that this additional information about Dobson and the others would be considered advertising in any way. Nor did I intend to promote anything, since all these events are in the past. I didn't previously know how to use the talk page, so did not see your explanation until after the block. Please forgive my misunderstanding. If unblocked, I will not further add any edits regarding this award. Thank you. GWalcher (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is why you raise it on the talk page, to explain your reasoning for inclusion, and to address any concerns. Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You can use the template at the bottom of the page to request an unblock. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Kristen Waggoner. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising, as you did at Kay Coles James. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, GWalcher. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page William L. Armstrong, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the edit COI template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see );
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see );
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You should take a few moments to read the above warning and cease attempting to use Wikipedia to advertise. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

GWalcher (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Unblock discussion
That's great in so far as it goes. However, you've not dealt with the edit warring. I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. You have not adequately addressed the reason for your block.

Please see our policy on edit warring. In the event of a content dispute, editors are required to stop reverting, discuss, and seek consensus among editors on the relevant talk page. If discussions reach an impasse, editors can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

Points to ponder:
 * Edit warring is wrong even if one is right.
 * Any arguments in favor of one's preferred version should be made on the relevant talk page and not in an unblock appeal.
 * Calling attention to the faults of others is never a successful strategy; one must address one's own behavior.

To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute. Please tell us, in your own words, what it all means. Thanks, &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response. I certainly had no intention of "edit warring," and did not understand the meaning of that. The first notice I saw suggested better third-party documentation, so I went back and added footnotes. That still got reversed, but I didn't realize that was happening. I thought I had posted the edits incorrectly, so I reposted them, not adding any additional comments and certainly not intending to criticize anyone. I had had done that several times before realizing that someone was reversing it each time. I asked for an explanation a couple times, then finally saw that there was an explanation of it already on my talk page, which I had never seen or accessed before. I certainly will never again re-add an edit without understanding the issue. I've only edited very rarely and so didn't figure this out until after the block. I fully apologize if I offended anyone, and will refrain from any such re-posting ever again, as well as understanding that the Armstrong Award is considered promotional, so will not further mention it. Thank you. GWalcher (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your explanation seems sufficient to me, so I will unblock you. Please remember that when you are in a dispute with another editor, instead of reverting their changes, you should discuss on a talk page. Also, if you are editing about something you have a conflict of interest with, please remember that you must declare your connection. Thanks, — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 22:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I will - thank you again. GWalcher (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

However I feel you may also need to read wp:npa and wp:nothere, it might be best to avoid making any edits related to your (alleged) wp:coi. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)