User talk:Osobooks

Hello Osobooks, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article Wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Osobooks, good luck, and have fun. --FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 08:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Steven T. Murray. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Cirt (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest at article Steven T. Murray

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Steven T. Murray, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COI noticeboard discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Steven T. Murray. Mathew5000 (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Osobooks! There's been some discussion at the above link regarding a potential Conflict of Interest that may exist with yourself and that article. Since you have "signed" one of your edit summaries as "STM", I am assuming that you are in fact Mr. Murray. Do note that the Wikipedia policy on anonymity does not require you to confirm or deny that, nor shall I "dig" any further into your identity. I just wanted to let you know where the COI discussion originated. With that in mind, here are some tips on editing in the areas you have been, to ensure that everything stays within policy.

First, please review our Guidelines for editing when you have a potential Conflict Of Interest. In a nutshell, if you have a close connection to a topic (which you certainly appear to in this case), you are strongly discouraged from making direct edits to the article. I realize this seems counter-intuitive, as you would naturally assume to have the most knowledge of the topic. While this is often true, over time we have found that many such editors have a tendency, even unconsciously, to not maintain a Neutral Point of View in their edits. This doesn't mean we don't want the benefits of your knowledge (quote the contrary, we welcome it!), but just that you need to take special steps to ensure it gets added according to our policy. The best way to do this is to make edits to the article's Talk Page (the "discussion" tab that every article has), and describe the nature of the edits you want to make. Discussion then happens, and the agreed-upon text gets added to the article by an uninvolved editor, which keeps everything nice and neutral.
Second, we need to ensure that the edits you make include information that is Verifiable through Reliable Sources that are unrelated to the topic itself. The rule of thumb for this bit is: We don't write about things we know, we write about things that others have already written about. Wikipedia is a "tertiary source" in that regards. As the Steven T. Murray article stands now, there is very little in the way of referencing of the information it contains. Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living People require everything to be referenced to ensure that no incorrect information is added. Unsourced information is often removed entirely by editors who make routine reviews of such biographies. There would not be much left of this article if all unsourced information was removed, so please help by finding citations for the article's claims.
Lastly, several editors have tried to initiate a dialog with you on all these points, both here and at the article's discussion page, but you have not responded to any of these. Discussion and collaboration is critical to the way Wikipedia operates. It is important to keep a discussion going, and especially critical in regards to the aforementioned Biographies of Living People. Having a potential COI does not disqualify you from contributing, but discussion of those contributions has to happen as well.

I hope all this helps. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like clarification on any of this. You can leave a note here, or at my user talk page (the "talk" after my name). Thanks! Arakunem^Talk 14:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi again Osobooks! Thanks for you reply on my talk page, and I hope I can clear up the questions you raised. First of all, regarding the talk pages: Every page on Wikipedia has an associated Talk page. It shows up as the "Discussion" tab at the top-left of the article, right above the large bold print article title. There are 2 tabs, "Article" and Discussion". Article being the actual article space itself, and discussion being the Talk page where editors discuss improvements to the article. You just click the Discussion tab to flip over to it, then you can read and edit it like you would any other page. The talk page for this article is at Talk:Steven T. Murray, and you can click that link directly to get there if you want.
- Next, regarding the upcoming sources. An article you write would not be usable as a reference, as it is considered a Primary Source (q.v.). In order to be used as a source, some other source would have to write about the primary source. This other source would then be considered a Secondary Source. The secondary source could then be included in the article, as Wikipedia is a Tertiary Source. Sourcing can be a bit confusing sometimes with what is or isn't allowed; the rule of thumb is: We don't write about what we personally know, have done, or have written. We write about what other people have already written about what we know, have done, or have written.
- Since you do have a connection to the article, the recommended method for you to add to the article is to use the Talk page to propose the text you wish to add, so other editors who are used to all the sourcing requirements and such can discuss the changes with you, to arrive at verbiage that meets all the appropriate policies. In general, an editor is highly discouraged from editing an article about themselves, to avoid the possibility or even the appearance of any bias.
- Lastly, I don't think the article is in immediate danger of deletion, though it may be trimmed some to conform to sourcing requirements. There was already a community discussion regarding deletion, and the consensus was that the article meets our notability standards due to the awards won.
- Hope this all helps. I know it can get confusing with all the jargon and such being used, but there are always experienced editors willing to help! Arakunem^Talk 15:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Steven T. Murray‎

The article Steven T. Murray‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jd2718 (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]