User talk:Renamed user 709baebe8a1511a6016d5fd31f2c1444
PhileasFoggthe4th, you are invited to the Teahouse!
|
Hi PhileasFoggthe4th! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC) |
May 2023
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Memetics. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - car chasm (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm TJRC. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Mapp v. Ohio have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. In addition to the Mapp article, you are spamming this across multiple article. Please stop. TJRC (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Follow-up: I see you have indiscriminately copy-pasted this link into almost fifty articles at the rate of three or four per minute, obviously without regard to whether it is appropriate. A review of your edit history shows that substantially all of your contributions over the last five years have been to promote this author. Please stop.
- In addition, if you are this author, please be aware of Wikipedia's policies on Conflict of Interest and start abiding by them. TJRC (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Hello TJRC,
- Thank you for reaching out and bringing this to my attention. I apologize if my recent contributions gave the impression of being promotional or against Wikipedia's policies. I assure you that it was not my intention.
- I understand the importance of maintaining objectivity, using independent sources, and presenting information from a neutral perspective on Wikipedia. I appreciate your guidance and will make sure to adhere to these principles in my future contributions.
- Regarding the article in question and its relevance to the Supreme Court case, I believe it is a worthwhile and peer-reviewed source that can contribute valuable insights to the topic. I will take your feedback into consideration and approach it from a neutral standpoint, providing objective information.
- I genuinely apologize for any inconvenience or disruption my previous actions may have caused. I assure you that I will review and reflect upon my editing history, and make the necessary adjustments to comply with Wikipedia's policies.
- Thank you for your understanding and guidance.
- What should be the next steps? PhileasFoggthe4th (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have any relationship with the author who you are promoting that you'd like to disclose? TJRC (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- I note that you've made just under 100 edits to articles; and of these, about 85 of them have been directed to adding material promoting this non-notable author. You re-added it to the Atwater' article after it was removed and you were warned, and although the article you added does indeed deal with Atwater, there is nothing to suggest that that article has any particular recognition in the academic or legal community that suggests it should be particularly singled out as a "Further reading" entry. Combined with your record of indiscriminately adding references to this author over literally scores of articles without regard for its applicability, this strongly suggests that your motivation is promotion, rather than any good-faith attempt to improve the Wikipedia articles to which you have been adding it. TJRC (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising, as you did at Atwater v. City of Lago Vista. TJRC (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)