User talk:Topdog1875

March 2009
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam); and,
 * 4) avoid breaching relevant 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 conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

March, 2009
Yes....I am the son of the subject of the article but I have tried to be very careful to keep favoritism out of the article and to only state the facts that can be substantiated. Indeed, everything I state in the article can be substantiated and I welcome review by others knowlegeable of the history of the sport.75.74.64.48 (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

April 4, 2009
helpme Just curious. I developed an new article for Joseph Levis| last week. I received comments from editors to remove a "weasel" statement, which I promptly did.....I also tried to include all inline citations that were called for by the editors. I also have included images and made other improvements to the article. Respectfully I ask, how long does an article of this type supposedly stay in editing limbo before it is available to the general public? Right now, the box of general editor's comments remains at the top of the article and, undeservingly, throws a bad light on the validity and wiki-like qualities of the article. Although I have always been a big reader of Wikipedia, I am new to Wikipedia editing and I am lost as to what I should do next to promulgate the article. Any advice would be appreciated.Topdog1875 (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is viewable by anyone as soon as you hit save, the boxes, or "tags" are present on many articles across wikipedia, both as a way for editors to find problem articles, and also so that readers are aware of any flaws. Anyone can remove or add a tag as they feel is right, although what I suggest you do is talk to the editors who added the tags and ask them if they feel the problem is sorted-- Jac 16888 Talk 18:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)