User talk:Layzgofer

September 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to NVR, Inc. appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. The "ryanhomesnightmare.com" website is not a reliable source, and presents a non-neutral view of the company. Scjessey (talk) 11:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

External links to NVR subsidiaries labeled 1 through 5 "about" go to professional copy written ads designed to sell the products, without adding any new significant information. They are not neutral sources, as corporations seldom write non-biased information about themselves, and can be verified as such by reading the external links. In effect Wikipedia is being used to go beyond informational when external links inform readers "why" they should buy from the company. Reasons no less valid "about" why they should not buy from the company should be included, or all promotional links should be removed. Layzgofer (talk)(12:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at NVR, Inc.. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Layzgofer. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article NVR, Inc., you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant 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. ''A brief Google search has made it obvious that you own the domain "ryanhomesnightmare.com" (and "ryanhomesnightmare2.com") that you keep trying to link to in the NVR article. By the complete lack of edits in any other articles, it is clear that you are editing Wikipedia to further an agenda. Please STOP doing this immediately, or you may find yourself blocked.'' Scjessey (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Researching NVR inc for more than thirteen years is a conflict of interest, as opposed to cut and pasting common information from NVR and affiliate sites to create an encyclopedic trusted source? The sites noted above have been repeatedly verified by NVR's own attorneys, and could not possibly exist for over ten years if not verified as fact based. They may not belong as a reference to NVR, I DO NOT benefit either way, but neither do references 1-5 that are links to copy ad written by NVR employees to sell NVR products. Using company ad copy, which can be misleading or false, is a poor way to qualify verifiable information. The Wikipedia article currently does not contribute any new significant or useful information that's not readily available with exception to the Joe Biden issue. It appears it never will. Layzgofer (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work. The references you object to are called primary sources, and they are perfectly acceptable when sourcing non-controversial information (such as when a company is formed, etc.). They are not "advertising". Putting links to you own website into an article is definitely advertising (in fact, spamming). Another thing that is totally unacceptable is this kind of bullshit. It clearly demonstrates your reason for editing Wikipedia is to push your agenda. If you don't cease this activity, I intend to report your behavior to administrators. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If I could, I would have gone directly to the administrators first, but there is no direct link.Layzgofer (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be delighted if you would go directly to the administrators. There is an administrator noticeboard where you can file incident reports here; however, the administrators will tell you the same thing I have: it is inappropriate for you to link to self-published material as a reference, particularly when that material is used to attack the subject of the article. They will also confirm that using a primary source to reference non-controversial information is perfectly acceptable. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)