User talk:Berzon
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)
- I am assuming you are acting in good faith. Please note: Wikipedia is not a place to air personal grievances, nor is it a place for product reviews. Please review WP:NOR, WP:SOAP. Netsumdisc (talk) 18:48, 8 February 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.
Berzon 18:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Final warning
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.
You are adding links to sites in which you have a commercial interest. Please review WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE.
I will change the link to Fool.Com version of the article
Look, if you have a problem with providing unbiased information, please remove yourself from the editor role. Your behavior is ridiculous and unacceptable. Every time you come up with a new reason for threatening me with being removed. Is the real reason you are doing it that you have a commercial interest tied to Fisher Investments?
If the problem is the site where this article is posted, I will provide a link to the same article on another site that I have no interest in whatsoever. However, I do not believe that this is the issue here, since the newspaper site I linked to is not investment related. Please, refer this matter to a neutral editor for speedy resolution and in the meantime I will change the link to the Live Journal version of this article.
February 2008
Berzon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have never added any spam links. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I have never added any spam links. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I have never added any spam links. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}