User talk:Garyferdman

December 2016
Your recent edit to Boys will be Boys appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. ''You made an addition to what Wikipedia calls a "disambiguation page", intended to point users to different articles by the same or very similar names, for a book that isn't actually the subject of a Wikipedia article. The Boys Will Be Boys disambiguation page isn't intended to be an all-inclusive listing of all appearances of this phrase in culture; it's just a waypointer to actual articles.  Julietdeltalima    (talk) '' 01:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

A few comments on your editing

 * 1) It was explained to you in December 2016 why your edit to a disambiguation page was inappropriate, but you have done the same again, several times. The first time I have no reason to doubt that you acted in perfectly good faith, being a new editor and not knowing that what you were doing was a mistake. However, by the time you had been informed of the situation and had also four times seen your edit reverted by more experienced editors, you certainly knew better, yet you did it yet again. Please don't.
 * 2) Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines indicate that you normally avoid editing about subjects to which you have a close personal connection, such as any business or other organisation you are connected to, your own work, members of your family, and so on. People editing on such subjects often find it difficult to see how the subject they are editing about will look from the detached point of view of an outside observer, with the result that they may find it difficult to edit in a balanced and neutral way.
 * 3) Repeatedly returning a page to the version one prefers in the face of reverts by other editors, known as "edit warring", is regarded as unhelpful. If it were allowed to continue indefinitely, the result would be simply that the most stubborn editor would eventually get his or her way, which is obviously not a good criterion for settling disagreements. The accepted practice if you find that one or more editors have disagreed with an edit of yours and it has been reverted is to explain the reasons why you think your version is preferable, and be willing to discuss the issues, with a view to trying to reach agreement, or failing that at least a version which can be accepted by a consensus of all or most of the editors involved. Please take note of that, as if you continue to edit war you may be blocked from editing by an administrator.
 * 4) It is very inadvisable to edit the same page both from your account and without logging in, as doing so is often done by editors who are trying to hide what they are doing, or evade Wikipedia policies. I am not suggesting that you have been trying to do that, just warning you that there is a danger that editors may get the impression that you are, so to avoid doubt, don't do it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)