User talk:Berzon: Difference between revisions
Netsumdisc (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
Your link to the article you wrote was removed because it was self-authored, and therefore considered [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]], an [[WP:SOAP|opinion piece]], and could be viewed as [[WP:SOAP|self-promotion]] or [[WP:SOAP|advertising]]. Also, bear in mind [[WP:BATTLE|Wikipedia is not a battleground]]. These sorts of things should generally be avoided. Hope that helps clear things up. |
Your link to the article you wrote was removed because it was self-authored, and therefore considered [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]], an [[WP:SOAP|opinion piece]], and could be viewed as [[WP:SOAP|self-promotion]] or [[WP:SOAP|advertising]]. Also, bear in mind [[WP:BATTLE|Wikipedia is not a battleground]]. These sorts of things should generally be avoided. Hope that helps clear things up. |
||
[[User:Netsumdisc|Netsumdisc]] ([[User talk:Netsumdisc|talk]]) 01:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC) |
[[User:Netsumdisc|Netsumdisc]] ([[User talk:Netsumdisc|talk]]) 01:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Stop that nonsense! == |
|||
I posted a link to an article I wrote on the subject. I did not change information on the page itself. Such links are permitted and are throughout wikipedia. It would be ridiculous to require sources for all the data provided on all the linked pages and there is no such requirement, as far as I can tell. If it is forbidden, please point to the exact sense, which you think makes it so. As far as self promotion, I have nothing to promote. I am not a money manager and the article is posted as a blog on the site of a Russian language newspaper! You, on the other hand, have no business editing pages on the subjects where you can not remain unbiased. Please don't do it again. |
|||
[[User:Berzon|Berzon]] 18:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 01:32, 31 January 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Thank you.
Because the article you cite is one you wrote yourself, this falls under original research. You appear to be new to Wikipedia, so I encourage you to visit Wikipedia:No Original Research and the welcome page. Netsumdisc (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Warning
Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Kenneth Fisher. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The article you link to is written by yourself. Please don't use Wikipedia to self-promote.Netsumdisc (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Why are you censoring my link?
Why are you censoring my link to the article on Fisher Investments from the Ken Fisher page? It is in no way vandalism, it is also not original research nor original thought. It is simply information that people investing with Fisher must know before choosing Ken's firm to manage their money. Fisher Investments representatives choose to avoid these very important issues in their sales process and skirt the issues if clients bring them up. Having only links with complimentary information is very one-sided and biased. In the interest of presenting a balanced view, please stop removing my link.
Please review Wikipedia guidelines
I can see you are new to Wikipedia. Welcome. There are some guidelines, as a newcomer, you may not be aware of just yet. I suggest you review:
Your thoughtful contributions are welcome. To avoid edit wars, getting warned, and possibly blocked, please review these and the welcome page.
Your link to the article you wrote was removed because it was self-authored, and therefore considered original research, an opinion piece, and could be viewed as self-promotion or advertising. Also, bear in mind Wikipedia is not a battleground. These sorts of things should generally be avoided. Hope that helps clear things up. Netsumdisc (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Stop that nonsense!
I posted a link to an article I wrote on the subject. I did not change information on the page itself. Such links are permitted and are throughout wikipedia. It would be ridiculous to require sources for all the data provided on all the linked pages and there is no such requirement, as far as I can tell. If it is forbidden, please point to the exact sense, which you think makes it so. As far as self promotion, I have nothing to promote. I am not a money manager and the article is posted as a blog on the site of a Russian language newspaper! You, on the other hand, have no business editing pages on the subjects where you can not remain unbiased. Please don't do it again.