User talk:Scotsquires

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Stutteringfoundation (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Stutteringfdn (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Stuttering Foundation of America. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI conflict of interest guideline

see also: Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia in Stuttering Foundation of America, Jane Fraser, or other articles, 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, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should 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;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with 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 a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. – Athaenara ✉ 00:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no spam links

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Bullying. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fred,

I'm trying to clean up the Stuttering Foundation's wikipedia page. But you took down what I did. I tried to add more information and sources to address concerns. I am NOT a sock puppet (or whatever it says). Please help. The Stuttering Foundation is a great organization and is nonprofit.

Thanks,

Scot Squires — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotsquires (talk • contribs) 15:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

All those other accounts have added material related to the Stuttering Foundation. Given that your edits look similar, the suggestion has been made that you are the same person.

Further, the addition of the Stuttering Foundation's link to Speech-language pathology doesn't look to be in compliance with WP:EL. It at least warrants further discussion at Talk:Speech-language pathology before adding the link. —C.Fred (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for cleaning up the Stuttering Foundation's article, the text you added did not adhere to WP:Neutral point of view. That's why I reverted it. —C.Fred (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]