User talk:Dseppling

The sources I provided were Emir Caner, Ergun Caner, and reporter David McGee. What Ergun said to those Marines is relevant. It is one of the best sources, since it is unedited video. I typed it without commentary. Emir Caner has relevant input to his brothers' conversion stories. The link to his book on google books was even provided. Emir was there. MosesModel (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you do not feel that Emir Caner and Ergun Caner are reputable sources, especially if you are doing this on Ergun Caner's behalf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MosesModel (talk • contribs) 17:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC) MosesModel (talk) 9:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DSEppling, I am willing talk about what sources you feel are valid for your employer's wikipedia page. If you would like to talk, let me know. Please do not wait and start wiping again. MosesModel (talk) 2:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ergun Caner. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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 you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dseppling. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Ergun Caner, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

1. 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.
2. Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
3. Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
4. Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content 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. I'm basing the conclusion on this edit summary. Please observer that your position gives you no special authority over this article. Favonian (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]