User talk:Ttflybless

August 2015
Hello, I'm George8211. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Mark T. Williams without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. &mdash;George8211 / T 15:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We can't have an entire section of external links in Mark T. Williams, sorry. See WP:EL. A lot of those articles are already included as citations in the text in any case. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And please don't remove large chunks of sourced information without discussing why in the talk page first. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello again. I've removed the lists of articles and presentations from Mark T. Williams as Wikipedia biographies generally aren't meant to have lists like that in. &mdash;George8211 / T 16:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not re-add the lists of articles and presentations by Mark T. Williams without an appropriate explanation. Thank you. &mdash;George8211 / T 16:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Mark T. Williams. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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 below this notice:. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that adding an entire section of external links is not acceptable, nor is replacing existing references with other links. That's the only thing you've done to the article so far, so if that's what you want to do if you're unblocked then there's no point in unblocking you. Further, you have a now-declared conflict of interest, which means you should be suggesting changes in the article's talk page, not making them yourself. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not seek to serve as an index to the works of people who are subjects of its articles. If you can suggest a reason for including such an extensive list of publications, other than a desire to make his work more publicly visible, i.e. promoting it, then I will be interested to see what that reason is. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have commented out the above unblock request as there is already an active request on the page. First off, there only being ~1000 active admins watching over almost 5 million articles means that arguing that page X should be allowed because article Y exists is meaningless, since the current status quo is a logistical nightmare. Indeed, many pages that should be deleted aren't solely because they haven't been brought to administrators' attention. Second, you don't need a list of all his published works to explain his area of expertise - just stating it and backing it up with a reliable source or two is good enough. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 16:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Hello, Ttflybless. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, 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 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.
 * 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. Note that Wikipedia'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.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)