User talk:Alonzo33

Welcome!

Hello, Alonzo33, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Deli nk (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point of View

Please do not introduce remarks into articles that do not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Your recent edits to Forever Living Products seem to show a distinct bias. Peridon (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Forever Living Products, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to introduce additional information into this article, given your clear pro-FLP point of view, I would suggest that you provide the information on the talk page with a solid set of references to reliable sources, not to puff pieces. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mike, I am sincereley struggling here lol. I am trying to post the actual magazine article WITH the reference. It merely speaks of the growth in the aloe industry AND mentions many other companies.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonzo33 (talk • contribs)

Then it's not a reliable source; we need articles that are about FLP, from reliable sources (I seem to recall that Entrepeneur mostly runs puff pieces). --Orange Mike | Talk 00:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike what did I dissrupt? All I asked is if you really think that Entrepreneur Magazine runs 'puff pieces' meanwhile Forbes does not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonzo33 (talk • contribs)

Did you not read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I now seee the threevert rule, thank you. Now about answering the 'puff' question between Forbes and Entrepreneur Magazine? Please do explain.Alonzo33 (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have asked for the Forbes vs. Entrepreneur question 3 times and have gotten no answer. Either you are busy writing a piece that will be highly informative to me OR you have no basis for that claim that Forbes has any more credibility. Please do share the logic. Thanks in advance!Alonzo33 (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I figured. At least try to be consistent when wielding the almighty internet sword. I am obviously new here and trying to learn my way. I even expressed that to you mentioning my struggle. You then state your claim(Forbes vs. Entrepreneur) and do nothing to substantiate it. I guess when you have the 'power' you need not explain a thing. I will try to abide better tomorrow and hopefully will have better luck the 2nd time around.

Alonzo33 (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --Orange Mike | Talk 00:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--Orange Mike | Talk 00:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posting from outside

Don't post a magazine article! It'll be deleted for copyright violation. You'll need to look at WP:COPY about copyright and what can and cannot be quoted. Short quotes, in quotes"", are OK so long as they are attributed to the source. Copy and paste is not allowed, except under the GFDL licensing. Besides, it'll likely be regarded as being too long. Also, you are sailing a bit near the wind in terms of spam. An article about a company is OK so long as it complies with WP:NPOV (Neutral point of view). Putting links to a company in an article about a general product can be seen as spam - unless they give extra information in a form that can't be added to the article. That's info about the product. The company may merit its own article - or it may be regarded as non-notable. The first deletion may be speedy. After that, if it reappears it can be taken to AfD (Articles for Deletion) where it is either universally supported, universally opposed or argued over. Sometimes a 'Keep' verdict may be accompanied by the opinion that it's crap but selling well (as in one recent case) or similar. I take it from your enthusiasm that you are connected with the company. Beware. NPOV is hard to achieve. I always say articles should by 'about' not 'by'.

Also, if a number of editors have taken something out, consider they may have a reason. Don't keep reverting. Look at their User Pages. If they haven't got one, they're new. If they have, look to see how well established they are. I'm comparatively recent, but have clocked up 2800 edits, and if you look at my (contribs) you'll see they are fairly widely spread. (You won't see the ones I tagged for speedy deletion that were deleted - they vanish.) Look at the other editors' pages and contribs too. If they are active and hard working, there's a reason why they're undoing your stuff. Do what you've just done. Ask one of them why - don't just keep reverting. Asking will get answers. Just carrying on like a rhino in a corn field will lead to permanent blocking. Peridon (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your block and the magazine

Orange Mike should not have blocked you since you didn't know about the three revert rule. He also should have told you why the magazine wasn't allowed. Administrators are supposed to help new users instead of blocking them for rules that that they have never heard of before. Since you repeatedly asked him to explain why the source wasn't allowed and because you got blocked for a rule that you didn't know, I suggest taking the situation to WP:ANI so that Orange Mike does what he should do as an administrator. Schuym1 (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actaully, I will do it myself. Schuym1 (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Hello. I reverted your Terry Lab additions to Forever Living Products, since the entities are distinct. Best regards --Eustress (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]