User talk:Mattsbigwords

April 2019
Hello, I'm 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

One of your recent additions has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Mattsbigwords. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

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

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you blank out or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Houston Graduate School of Theology. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

0

You're "very concerned with what you've written"?! I added the president's name, corrected the degrees we offer, and expanded the history from a VERY inaccurate one sentence to ten sentences that are completely without bias. Our school has 200 students, and we are virtually invisible to our community as a rule. The idea that Wikipedia editors have any information or insight on this institution or details around it is laughable. I also thought maybe we could have our logo up there since no other wikipedia user has the authority to share our logo publicly. But never mind. I used to edit a bunch on here, but I had heard the community had become very uptight and it was affecting content. I see the rumors are right. Mattsbigwords (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry. To be clear, I was very concerned with what you wrote in your unblock request. As to the logo, it is not the case that nobody else has the authority to use the logo. WP:FAIRUSE would apply here, though note that this is a notoriously tricky policy and concept to understand. I mean absolutely no disrespect here, I mean this quite honestly. You would reasonably assume only someone working for the school would have permission to use the logo. It's a reasonable assumption, but not quite accurate as fair-use would apply. In fact, it gets more complicated than that, but I won't go into the details unless you ask. "The idea that Wikipedia editors have any information or insight on this institution or details around it is laughable." Note that information must be cited from reliable sources. That generally means that nobody (including you) can add information you know to be correct unless you can find a citation for it. This can be a problem for smaller companies or smaller schools. In many cases, it means the subject shouldn't have a Wikipedia article about it (see WP:NOTE) but that doesn't apply here. It's quite appropriate for Wikipedia to have an article about your school, it just means it's harder to add information. Still, though, you have a conflict of interest and shouldn't be editing directly. You weren't blocked for that, but it will apply once your block for edit warring expires. As I mentioned before, you are free to suggest edits on the article's talk page, after disclosing your conflict of interest. WP:COI goes into more specifics; I've given only the general rule, but there are specific exceptions that allow you to edit directly, if certain conditions are met. --Yamla (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow!! That entry I tried to edit last year is still inaccurate. Like the website itself, it's top-shelf for 1998. Congratulations.

My kids come home from school and their teachers tell them that Wikipedia is NOT a credible source. I used to argue, but after this experience, I totally agree. Wikipedia is bullshit. I can't imagine the hoops someone has to jump through to actually make a real change to something. The idea of the site was to gather community-sourced information, and accuracy was ensured by community engagement. But that's not true at all anymore, is it? The community has no role. Wikipedia is hostage to an army of unfulfilled Poindexters who protect their flimsy domain with coded language, secret handshakes, and a labyrinth of bizarre rules and regulations, which they enforce to the detriment of the whole project.

In order to change 120 words on the description of a small unknown seminary, which was simply correcting dates, updating names, and updating degree programs, you have written over a THOUSAND words. I am not reading a freaking New Yorker article to update two paragraphs.

In the end, I don't care. I was updating the page because I have used Wikipedia from the start, and when I see an error I want to fix to it -- to protect the credibility of the site. I feel like a Good Samaritan who was walking down the street and saw a man in a suit with a sign taped to his back that said, "I am a moron." Trying to be helpful, I tapped him on the shoulder to let him know and was promptly wrestled to the ground and kicked a couple times for good measure. Fine, editors. You won. Wikipedia is now safe, and we can all go back to laughing at what a freaking joke the site has become.

Block notice
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * When your block expires please ensure you use the article talk page to discuss and get consensus for the changes you would like to see made to the article prior to attempting to restore the edits. At this time you are adding large amounts of unsourced text which has been reverted by several editors and edit warring to blank clean-up templates, which is unacceptable. Please also review this information regarding editing with a conflict of interest.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)