The one firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that if more than one person is using this account to edit, then unfortunately it will be blocked from editing.
If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
First, I should point out that I'm not a Wikipedia administrator, so these aren't "my" policies, they are the policies that the Wikipedia user community has agreed on, so they are, in effect, "our" policies (including you, as another Wikipedian). Secondly, I agree that you have made many significant contributions to various articles stemming from your extensive background in those areas. However, I believe that those contributions should stand on their own merit, and on the strength of the citations that you have provided. Clearly, your published work has already been peer-reviewed, and can be considered reliable. It is unlikely that users who read these article and see the citations will then seek out information about the author of the citations. If you wish to explain your background so that users may have a better understanding of the viewpoint of your contributions, that is a suitable purpose for a user page (User:Fauncet in your case). I have not nominated your article for deletion, because I believe from the sources available that you are a notable academic in the areas you cover. I could have wished for a more independent start of the article, but I believe it will withstand scrutiny from the community. I hope that by marking it as an autobiography, I will encourage indepent editors to research the article and modify it as necessary to assure neutrality. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!14:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While your second set of edits addresses some of the issues in your original edit, there remain substantial concerns around your addition, which I have highlighted on the article's Talk page. Please respond there. --Yumegusa (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had never edited on wikipedia before. I looked up my book "Who Owns Our Health" and the Eruditor book store (as I check now) (see http://www.eruditor.com/books/item/9780801888434.html.en) had a drop down with my name to a Wikipedia entry. When I clicked on it there was nothing there except a blank page with administrative information. I thought that was the entry. That's why I started it.Fauncet (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm the one who posted the notice earlier about a conflict of interest regarding your autobiographical page. Please don't take that as an attack, I just wanted to point out that guidelines discourage that sort of editing. If I had found, or thought I had found an article about myself before I was familiar with Wikipedia (unlikely or impossible) I would be tempted to edit it as well, that's a natural reaction. If it is any consolation, most autobiographical articles are deleted as "self-promotion" but I think yours is unlikely to be, because you seem to be notable under this project's standards and the references given in the article are pretty good. Your knowledge would be helpful to the project, I would just caution you to only offer suggestions on the talk page of your article rather than making changes to the article itself (unless those changes are removing obvious vandalism). Thanks! -- Atamachat23:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stay! Having looked at your bio you would definitely be a valued asset to wikipedia. Don't let the fact that you don't yet know the rules put you off - they can be rather complicated. I can see that despite creating an autobiography it is well cited and only needs a little clean up from other editors. Message me if you have any questions about how to edit and I'll be happy to help. Smartse (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
July 2009
Your recent addition to Stockton Beach, New South Wales has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please note specifically the section titled "Copyright" at this pageAussieLegend (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK.Im revisingFauncet (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The entry is now a brief original sentence with the same reference to the page and date of Hansard where the establishment of the park was announcedFauncet (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Just a note to say a belated welcome to Wikipedia. Your expertise is of much value to the project and I hope you hang around! Please don't be put off by the inevitable little disagreements that happen. The less knowledgeable editors, like me, can learn a lot from contributors who are specialists in their field like you, and you get the chance to exercise the virtue of patience! Taam (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Countering Systemic Bias Project
I think you might be an asset here, since you voiced a desire to fill in the gaps on Wikipedia within your magesteria of knowledge. Also, some policy to get to know since you are new here, and it's easy to fall into the pitfalls of being a new editor:
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Alured Faunce until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
