User talk:BlakePolzl

June 2013[edit]

Hello, BlakePolzl. 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 Satanism, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site guidelines and policies you may find useful[edit]

"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum, additions to talk pages should be about improving the article within the guidelines, not voicing one's opinion on the subject matter.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.

Also, Wikipedia is not for the promotion of anything one has personally founded. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Informal edit war warning[edit]

I noticed that yesterday, you reverted removals of your edits three times. Aside from being a sign that you need to reconsider whether Wikipedia is really the right place for whatever you added, this is considered edit warring, and can get you blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Satanism, you may be blocked from editing. You've received messages from two editors giving plenty of site rules explaining that you cannot use this site to promote yourself or things related to you. Stop. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Satanism, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unresponsive self-promotional SPA. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion, as you did at Satanism. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. v/r - T P 20:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]