User talk:Timmuthy

September 2016
Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that in this edit to Tim Vipond, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

== Your edits to Tim Vipond (1, 2) ==

Please do not remove content like that and state that it is vandalism. It is not vandalism. And your removal of content immediately afterwards stating "living person" in your edit summary shows that you're aware of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy; the content you removed did not violate policy such as this. Can you please explain to me what you're doing and why?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm related to the person

If you believe Linkedin is reliable, then I deserve a Wikipedia aricle also. No?
 * I'm sorry, Timmuthy, but the reason behind your changes are not sufficient per Wikipedia's policies. Just "knowing the person" alone and without any other reasons to cite regarding your removal of content isn't valid, and could actually play into the realm of Wikipedia's no original research policy (in a way). This policy states that you cannot use personal knowledge, relationships, or even articles or websites you've written to add content. In a way, this works the other way: you need to cite a reason other than your personal knowledge of the subject to justify removing the content. What exactly is wrong with it? Why are you removing it?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The article gives him too much credit for the business, when he's a minority investor
 * This is also not a sufficient reason given the fact that you claim to be related to this person. If you have concerns, you need to cite policy and with a legitimate reason.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Owner/emploee relation

Now you're editing Shoes.com
...And claiming you own the business on top of that. Please do not make further edits to article that you have any kind of conflict of interest in. Instead, please contribute to other articles that you have no involvement in. Thanks :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

So if there's an article for my employee, there should be one for me, Sean Clark, founder of Shoes.com