User talk:HacksBack

February 2012[edit]

Some are suggesting that the original contract drafted and published (printed by) Broadway Video is not a source sufficient to prove the existence of a virtually duplicate show created three years before Taxi Confessions aired. Granted I have self interests as that creator. Anyone care to take a stab at including this important and very relevant information? I do not see how publishing that contract on my own website is not relevant. It is available at : http://www.sufifilms.com/contract.htm What is even more interesting is that the only reference in the entire article, other than one broken link, was provided by me. This entire article lacks reliable sources and clearly has its own conflict of interest issues. I intend to produce this show as originally conceived - less freak and more substance. HacksBack (talk)HacksBack (talk)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Jinn, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Sparthorse (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edits to Taxicab Confessions. Self-published sources should be used only in limited cases, and the claim made in the article are not one of those cases. Please provide secondary sources that back up your assertions. —C.Fred (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original contract from Broadway Video would not suffice. It would still be a primary source. Articles should be based on secondary sources.

Besides, if your assertions are correct, the original contract would not mention the successor show, so I don't see how it would prove anything other than that McConnell developed a similar show. —C.Fred (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Taxicab Confessions, you may be blocked from editing. Sparthorse (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HacksBack. 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 Taxicab Confessions, 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 following the 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. Sparthorse (talk) 07:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, HacksBack. You have new messages at Talk:Taxicab_Confessions.
Message added 10:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sparthorse (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest edit to Talk:Taxicab Confessions[edit]

Hi HacksBack, I have removed your latest edit to Talk:Taxicab Confessions. Article talk pages are there to discuss improvements to the article, not for you to promote your own rival show. Once your show is produced and become notable it can have its own article. For now, it has nothing to do with Taxicab Confessions. Please leave that article (and its talk page) alone unless you have constructive edits to make. By the way, I am entirely unaffiliated with HBO and your suggestions to the contrary are insulting and unfounded. Sparthorse (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Reality television, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for your self-promotion. ⊃°HotCrocodile...... + 02:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012[edit]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Hijama, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. bobrayner (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012[edit]

Your recent editing history at Hijama shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. SÆdon ^talk 20:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reported[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. SÆdon ^talk 20:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some concerns[edit]

Hi,
Is this your website? If so, I suggest you read wikipedia's policies on:

Conflicts of interest (ie. saying that a form of alt-med is only legitimate if practitioners have paid you for training)
Self-published sources (a website you wrote yourself probably doesn't count as a reliable source, especially for medical content)

bobrayner (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]