User talk:White Eagle 70

Welcome![edit]

Hello, White Eagle 70, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Icewhiz (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Icewhiz (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Icewhiz (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Richard C. Lukas, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using the minor edits checkbox until you've gotten an understanding of what it's for. You're continuing to add content with the box checked. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, White Eagle 70. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Richard C. Lukas‎, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plesae stop being uncooperative[edit]

Please stop doing edits like this where you undo the efforts of several other editors to improve the article, state no reason for your undoing them, and then mark your edit as "minor". I understand you have a preferred version of the article, but that doesn't give you the right not to active cooperatively. You do not have special control over the article. Please see WP:OWN. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I, as well as other editors, are trying to correct and properly cite parts of this content. You sir claim to be interested in neutrality and objectivity, yet you've been going in and adding potentially slanderous one-sided content, citing people who are not historians and you think you have the right to libel this author. Other editors, along with myself, are trying to present a balanced view, including the criticisms as well as the positive aspects of this author's career. It is my understanding that Wikipedia seeks to present an objective view with properly referenced materials, which is what we've been trying to do in spite of your deliberate blocking and obstructing our efforts. White Eagle 70 (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)White Eagle 70[reply]