User talk:Bbentllc

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Bbentllc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Please go read some of our policies such as WP:COI and WP:PEACOCK. Cheers! He iro 04:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Artie Kornfeld[edit]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not the proper venue for effusive, uncited promotional pieces. The Artie Kornfeld article doesn't meet Wikipedia standards on many fronts and will need considerable edits to bring it within those standards. It would be great if you could help improve the article, but disruptive editing is not helpful, will be reverted, and could lead to further administrative actions. You should also familiarize yourself with WP:3RR since editors who violate it are liable for blocking. --Walor (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Artie Kornfeld. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. more than 3 rvts in a 24 hr period a a redline blocking offense. Stop now, He iro 04:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since "LLC" is part of your username, are you here to represent and edit on behalf of a business? He iro 05:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I manage Mr. Artie Kornfeld. He changed the music industry and is responsible for many artist's successes, that is why I had all of the artists listed, they are all verifiable.68.96.111.23 (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then, yes you are representing a business, please see WP:CORPNAME. He iro 05:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I own a business that represents Artie Kornfeld, how is that a problem? You know what, thank you so much for sharing your information with me. Take good care. 68.96.111.23 (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Brenda Brown[reply]

Go read that last bluelink and you will see, specifically "A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked. In such cases, administrators should examine the user's edits to decide whether or not to allow them to create a new username. If there is evidence that the user would continue to edit inappropriately under a new username, the blocking administrator should enable the "autoblock" and "prevent account creation" features." You really need to read up some of our policies, specifically the WP:COI and WP:PEACOCK. Until you read and understand them, you time here will probably not be spent very happily, as you will continue to get notices like this. Cheers, He iro 05:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just one more question for you, since Artie Kornfeld is well on in years now, if he updated his own page, that is acceptable then? I am just trying to help him out. Thanks for all of the information that you shared. 68.96.111.23 (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going and actually reading our policy on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest or WP:COI would answer that question. But, it says "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. COI editing is strongly discouraged." He iro 07:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome and COI info[edit]

Hello, Bbentllc. 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 Artie Kornfeld, 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 Wikipedia: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. Thank you. RudolfRed (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Elizabeth 'Lizzie' Sophia Sider (March 2)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Elizabeth 'Lizzie' Sophia Sider and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Bbentllc, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Hello, Bbentllc. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by —Anne Delong (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]