User talk:ComedyGuy15

April 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames which give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy.

You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose.

If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice.

You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

ComedyGuy15 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

ComedyGuy15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I didn't realize my username was a violation. My mistake. Thank you. Comedydynamics (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Allowing username change to requested username. Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. PhilKnight (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Comedydynamics. 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 Comedydynamics, 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.
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. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

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. Eeekster (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm still learning but I absolutely will take great caution, avoid linking, and review everything to avoid any policy violations. I will only add facts that can be cited by various reliable sources, when I do make edits. I do not plan on making any biased edits and my main focus is to cite the article as thoroughly as possible to avoid deletion of the page. Thanks again.

Speedy deletion nomination of Comedy Dynamics

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Comedy Dynamics, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Eeekster (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted as a result of this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comedy Dynamics. The point, of course, isn't to favour or disfavour anyone, but that if there aren't sufficient independent, reliable sources, it's simply impossible for us to write an encyclopaedia article about something. Wily D 20:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were 15 sufficient independent, reliable sources, including The New York Times. There are also Hollywood Reporter, Rolling Stone, and Variety articles, which were to be added before the page was taken down.ComedyGuy15 (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]