User talk:Linguini17

Welcome!
Hello, Linguini17, and welcome to Wikipedia!&#32;Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article.&#32;Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Phyllis Baldino, what's the problem?
I'd rather we avoided a potential problem so I'm going to ask you. What's the problem with the part you're removing at Phyllis Baldino, the source seems to be a fair one with the statement backed. MM (I did the who in the whatnow?)  (I did this! Me!) 22:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MM (I did the who in the whatnow?)  (I did this! Me!) 23:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Phyllis. Whilst you're probably right about the information in the article being incorrect (you would know, after all!), I feel it's worth pointing out that Wikipedia doesn't always work quite the way people expect it to with regard to factual accuracy. The gold standard here is verifiability, not truth - if information has been published in reliable sources (of which The New York Times is a fairly good example), then we generally consider it worthy of inclusion. Journalists get things wrong, but we make the assumption that a medium like the NTY does at least minimal fact-checking on its content. As a result, you'll find that other editors will generally revert edits which remove information that has been correctly sourced like this; whether it's "right" or not is secondary - as far as Wikipedia is concerned - to whether it's sourced or not. You're prefectly entitled to defend your removal of the text, but the best way to do so is to produce other sources which support your version of events. With respect, we have no evidence that you actually are Phyllis Baldino, and so we rely on sources rather than say-so when deciding what content to use.
 * Since I'm here, it's probably also worth pointing out that you have a conflict of interest regarding an article about you, and although you haven't done anything worthy of censure so far, it would be worth your while reading the best practice guidelines for COI editors to avoid any unpleasantness in the future. In a nutshell, you are welcome to monitor your article and to suggest changes to it, but any actual changes beyond the most minimal, obvious or cosmetic should not be made by you.
 * Please feel free to get in touch with me or ask at the helpdesk or the teahouse if you need any assistance. Best wishes, Yunshui 雲 水 07:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition to the above, please also note that being involved in an edit war on an article at Wikipedia (like you were at this article) can result in your account being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.  Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting repeatedly, it is worth using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors (see also BRD for how this is done). Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)