User talk:Steve Consalvez

Conflict of interest
Hello, Steve Consalvez. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with;
 * instead, propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the template);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation'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.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies. Thank you. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Re this edit: "This is referenced material and deleting valid history about Robbins' career is vandalism and disruptive editing. This has been resolved."
 * No, my edit is not vandalism. On Wikipedia, the term "vandalism" is restricted to deliberate attempts to damage Wikipedia.
 * To avoid disruptive editing, we generally follow the guideline WP:BRD: You boldly added material. You were reverted. Now it is time to discuss the change you wish to make on the article's talk page.
 * This exact material has been added repeatedly in the past. The editor(s) adding the material has refused to discuss the issue. Thus, the status quo -- NOT including the material -- remained. You are trying to change what is there. When challenged -- and you have been challenged -- you must explain your edit and build a consensus to support the change.
 * In all likelihood, your edit will be reverted again by another editor. Regardless, I will open a discussion on the talk page about this apparent attempt to promote Burkan. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Firewalking. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.  Scr ★ pIron IV 19:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Neil N  talk to me 02:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)