Hello, I'm DreamRimmer. I noticed that you recently removed content from Mentor, Ohio without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DreamRimmer (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Mentor, Ohio, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
September 2023
Hello, I'm TheNewMinistry. I noticed that you recently removed content from Burning River Buckets without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.TheNewMinistry (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summaries
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Burning River Buckets did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.
It's not apparent that you've seen my response to you either on my talk page or at Talk:Burning River Buckets, so I'm going to copy our exchange here, too:
Hello, I apologize if I did things incorrectly, but I am the owner of the burning River buckets how do I go about getting you the accurate information about the status of my team? We have not folded and there is some updated information that placed on our page and information deleted from our page thank you for your help. Absolutely no rush. I was just thinking about it today. C.A. Buttons (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply][reply]
The primary issue with your edits so far is that Wikipedia relies on material sourced to published independent reliable sources. As the owner of the team, you aren't independent of this subject, nor have you cited anything published.
However, a larger issue is your close relationship to this subject which runs afoul of Wikipedia's confict of interest rules. Editors with a conflict under this policy are strongly discouraged from directly editting such articles; they are instead encouraged to suggest edits on the article's talk page by using the {{edit COI}} template.
avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.
As you've been told, your connection to the topic is a conflict of interest. You've been informed of the conflict of interest policy that you need to follow.
As to the specific changes, Wikipedia relies on material sourced to published independent reliable sources. As the owner of the team, you aren't independent of this subject, nor have you cited anything published. -- Pemilligan (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining what is meant by "conflict of interest" and why information needs to be sourced
Hello,
I see you've run into some trouble with the article Burning River Buckets. I've left the article mostly the way you wanted it for now (because, frankly, the article was not great before you started editing and I'm not convinced you did anything to make it worse besides deleting a reference seemingly by accident) but there are a few things you should keep in mind.
The most obvious thing is that as the owner of the team you have a clear conflict of interest, which means that your changes to the page will naturally be viewed with a lot of suspicion; many new editors show up on Wikipedia looking for a place to improve their own image, or that of their boss or the company the own or work for; effectively advertising or promotion, though it can take many forms. There's a guide here you can follow if you want changes made to a topic you're connected with, though honestly my personal recommendation would be to stay away from the topic completely; it's really not worth the hassle it causes you and other editors.
You also say above on this page: I have no sources. I am the source. This is understandable, but Wikipedia has a specific policy against this sort of thing. All content needs to be verifiable and come from a reliable source. Ultimately what belongs on the article isn't what you know about the subject; it is what reliable sources have published about the subject. (What if you're not really the team owner? What if you're some kind of impostor?)
I realize it is frustrating, but there are reasons for (and many arguments behind) the content policies on this site and it's not really feasible to make an exception for one editor.
Thank you! You are the first person that has been nice about this and actually sent me things to help me. I appreciate it because the rest of the folks well, I will keep my comments to myself. Thank you again and I really appreciate you taking the time to type out a message with clarity. C.A. Buttons (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see here [1] (for details of a 3 year block previously dispensed to a user claiming to be the owner of the club), and here [2] (with regards to keeping one's comments to oneself). Axad12 (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate, I wasn't aware of that. I'm hoping though that it's a moot point going forward; if better understanding of how Wikipedia works helps this user to contribute more constructively (or at least cause less threads to be posted at noticeboards), then problem solved.
I'll leave it to a passing admin whether the changes made after the block count as block evasion and need to be dealt with accordingly. My personal opinion would be no, on the grounds that it's fairly likely they weren't aware they were doing it. --Richard Yin (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably safe to assume based on this comment [3] at WP:RPPI that the original blocking admin did consider it to be block evasion or something not unadjacent to it. They have now added protection to the article, which presumably resolves the matter. Axad12 (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
