User talk:Goodreads5398

Limbitless Solutions
Hi and thanks for the article. Note, I see that a lot of the content is directly copied from several internet sources. For legal reasons we cannot accept text copied from sources that are not published under a free license. Even changing a couple of words, such as where the Statasys blog has a quote from one of the inventors: "So we used it to create a low cost solution that eliminates the time and expense of traditional manufacturing techniques like CNC milling." and the article just turned that into prose: This printer was used to create a low cost solution that eliminates the time and expense of traditional manufacturing techniques like CNC milling., this is still considered a copyright problem. The test for that sort of re-use is: Are these words, and only these words, capable of conveying the information needed?

As you are the author, you will know best where you used content in this fashion, so please re-visit the article and re-word those parts. Otherwise, content will likely just be culled from the article wholesale, which would certainly disrupt the flow. The most extreme result would be the article being deleted for copyright infringement.

Please feel free to ask me anything here, as I know copyright is an often confusing area. Thanks again for your article, Crow  Caw  17:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

July 2016
Hello, I'm Grayfell. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Search engine optimization metrics have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Goodreads5398. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Limbitless Solutions, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. ''I notice that you have added reference links to a blog post by someone who also does marketing for Limbitless, which strongly suggests a professional conflict of interest. Read the above carefully. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, so exploiting that for promotion is unethical, is against the project's policies, and is usually against the site's terms of service. Thank you.'' Grayfell (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

COI again
Hello. I just want to make absolutely sure that you have read the above content about editing with a conflict of interest. You recent edits added links to blogs written by a person who described himself as doing marketing for Limbitless Solutions, which you wrote. It's strains plausibility beyond the breaking point that this would be a random coincidence, so I assume that you are, in some way, connected to both the non-profit, and the blogger. You must declare any editing for which you receive compensation, or expect to receive compensation. 'Compensation' should be taken broadly, here, see Paid-contribution disclosure. I have your talk page on my watchlist, so you can respond here. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

- Hi there, and thanks for linking to the COI. I take my (and all) Wikipedia entries very seriously, and wouldn't attempt to diminish any of my entries' quality with conflict bias, as you suggest. I can appreciate your assumption, as I am quite familiar and interested with the non-profit mentioned. That being said, this is the entire extent of my relationship, and no compensation (past, present, future, in any form) is an accurate depiction of my relationship. I find the entry of value, as there is no mention of the Majestic Million metric on this page, and have undone your prior removal. Please let me know your thoughts, as I truly respect your opinion. Thank you. Goodreads5398 (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You're going to have to give me a bit more than that. I'm not saying that you're being biased, I'm saying that there is a strong reason to believe you have a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest editing is source of constant trouble for the project, even when its done with the best of intentions. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion, even for charities or other noble causes. The sources you added to the marketing article do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliability (WP:RS), which, by itself, would be a minor issue. The first article you added was written by a person who's profile lists marketing and SEO as areas of expertise, and also claims to do marketing for Limbitless. Do you see why this is a red flag? Are you seriously claiming that's a coincidence? As I said, that's just flat-out unbelievable.
 * As for why those sources aren't usable, I would be happy to explain in more detail if needed, but put simply, neither site has a "reputation for accuracy and fact-checking" which is required by policy. Grayfell (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Limbitless Solutions, you may be blocked from editing. Grayfell (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Grayfell: Thanks for writing, although I think you've misunderstood my edit. A prior user had read through the list of outlets, and left a tag stating that better sources were needed, as the current reference was pulled from more of a PR page. I attempted to remedy this by adding better sources, which is what makes sense to do in this situation. I don't appreciate being attacked, especially while trying to fix promotion tags on the page, and I believe these edits should be reverted to my last revision. Interested to know your reasoning, as these have all been included since the stub was initially created. Goodreads5398 (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who tagged those links back in July. I tried to discuss this with you then, but you ignored me, and are now adding more puffery to the article. I was hoping someone would properly fix the section, but that didn't happen, and rather than see the problem get even worse, I have removed it. It's no great loss to the article, as the section was just a list of news outlets (and other sites) which had covered the Robert Downey Jr. incident. This was already covered in the above section, so an entire second section for it was gratuitous. It also mentions the "pro bono" thing, but it doesn't say what that means, or who gave them pro bono... what, web design? Is that what it's about? How is that encyclopedic? The NIH thing could be readded, but only with a reliable, independent source establishing significance, rather than merely PR.
 * No matter how noble the company's goals, Wikipedia isn't a place for advertising. Grayfell (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took so long, I haven't been editing recently. I had shared your idea that these would be fixed, but made changes yesterday after noticing that no changes had been made. I still believe these news sources should be added and are notable, but I agree that most were previously mentioned anyway. I re-added the 3dprint.nih.gov section, referencing the collection the organization is part of and also the specific upload showing the time stamp. Thanks Goodreads5398 (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)