User talk:LocalLANerd

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, WRCosA. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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.
 * 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. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. ''Your edit summary indicates your association. Please be very, very careful.'' Bazj (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

August 2017
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Frank G. Bonelli Regional Park, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Los Angeles Stadium at Hollywood Park. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Olympic games
You have been adding information about the 2028 Summer Olympics, which are tentatively to take place in Los Angeles. However, the source you are citing is a plan for the 2024 Olympics. This very large discrepancy makes the information you are adding of dubious reliability and likely just speculative. Will you consider removing your edits until a more reliable source can be located? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The 2028 plan is identical to the 2024 plan. so no, I am not going to remove edits that I worked so hard on. If someone wants to add an additional source then they are free to do so. Since I have added sources, there is no good reason to remove the hard work that I have already put into this. --WRCosA (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss at Talk:2028 Summer Olympics. Cordially, --WRCosA (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Tom Petty. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 19:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  09:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You might want to check out Free_speech. Your "constitutional rights" don't apply on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an extension of the American government. I'm not going to assess this unblock request, but I wanted to point out that your argument based on your "rights" being violated is flawed. Additionally, your username certainly can be see as promotional as it represents your company. only (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * My company? Are you shitting me? It's not my company. My family has had NOTHING to do with it since 1955. I was born in the 90s. So no, It's not my company. So my constitutional rights don't apply on wikipedia? Maybe I should give my lawyer a call and see what he says! --WRCosA (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I should also add that the useful edits I have made to wikipedia have helped me deal with my bi-polar depression. It gives me something to do when I have downtime. By preventing me from using wikipedia, you are potentially hurting me emotionally. --WRCosA (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * In that case, you should take a look at no legal threats. only (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, I retract the above statements about consulting my lawyer. It was an "in the heat of the moment" reaction. Please forgive me as I am kind of upset. I should not let my emotions cloud my judgement. Please accept my apology. --WRCosA (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I've done the rename (from User:WRCosA), and someone else will review your unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

--LocalLANerd (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I have been very reasonable with my requests here. If someone would be as so kind to explain why this block has yet to expire, I would appreciate that. I think this is on the excessive side in all fairness. When could I be unblocked? Is there a timeline or will my account be forever silenced? I would appreciate some feedback. --LocalLANerd (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * And, with that - talkpage access revoked. SQL Query me!  14:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of William R. Cosentini


The article William R. Cosentini has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No indication of notability. Sources are census data, a marriage announcement and a passing mention; that's all. Google Books and Google Web give no useful hits."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Huon (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)