User talk:Readerfix

Nick Turse
The edits you made to the Nick Turse article go into far too much detail. Wikipedia isn't a promotional site. These articles are supposed to be objective. See the Nick Turse talk page. Chisme (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * These entries don't promote the author. They are largely a recitation of facts and have verifiable citations.  The people quoted said what they did about his books.  The synopses explain his works.  Too much detail?  Really?  Why not have a blank page? Readerfix (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I will answer your last three, purportedly rhetorical questions, by directing you to read Talk:Nick Turse. For the sake of a better article, other editors such as myself will trim excessive detail. Kindly view this as objective. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest: Nick Turse
Hello, Readerfix. 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 Nick Turse, 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. The next step is filing at the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard 70.134.227.120 (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring on Nick Turse article
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Nick Turse. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please discuss your concerns on the Talk page of the article, rather than simply reverting edits that you don't like. A discussion on the Columbine essay has already been started there. 75.0.192.91 (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.