User talk:Jdobypr

Hello Jdobypr. 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 Edubb, 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. --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Another unblock request
I have reviewed the rules regarding the use of my company name in my account and the appearance of a COI which I totally refute. The sole purpose for my entries are as a LOG of information. Would the certificate from the U.S. Patent and Trademark office for the cultural term created by this group also be considered unreliable? If we need to include run dates for the links, I can totally understand that and will correct the omissions (although the items in question are STILL actively in rotation); also as regards outside references would we want to include text from the articles and THEN provide the link with proper attribution? It is not our goal to disrespect the purpose of Wikipedia but we would like the opportunity to correct our errors so that the group in question has a fair opportunity to be listed on Wikipedia. The articles I would improve revolve around the group EDUBB so that they meet the criteria of this outlet. Although for academic purposes Wikipedia is not considered a reputable source for citations, the world at large does recognize the outlet as do we.Jdobypr (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your user name is simply not OK. That's the end of it. Even the proposed content of your edits is moot as long as your username is not in agreement with our guidelines. Your latest unblock request was not properly formatted, and so I have removed it. You are free to do this again, but you'll have to propose a new username. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)