Welcome!

edit
Hello, Kroberts87, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for recognizing the benefits of becoming a registered user, creating your user/talk page, and your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you need help, check out useful resources & Getting Help below, ask on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page & add {{Help me}}. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) after your text entry, or by clicking   if shown, in order to produce your username & date. Please always fill in edit summary field with a brief description of your article or talk page edits (optional when just adding your communications on talk pages).
You can practice in your personal sandbox (add {{My Sandbox|replace with your user name}} on your user page for future easy access) or your user page. Masssly —Sadat (Masssly)TCM 23:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Sadat (Masssly)TCM 23:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

April 2014

edit

  Your addition to Nova Law Review has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. PLEASE NOTE: even if permission to use this text could be obtained, it would not be usable for WP because it is promotional and not neutral. Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Managing a conflict of interest

edit

  Hello, Kroberts87. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Nova Law Review, 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 ensuring their edits are verified by 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:

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • 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. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

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. Randykitty (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

November 2014

edit

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nova Law Review may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Constitutional Law: The Pcaob and Its Public/private Status, 80 Notre Dame L. Rev. 975, 1071 (2005)).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

  This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at Nova Law Review, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nova Law Review may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Law: The PCAOB and Its Public/private Status'', 80 Notre Dame L. Rev. 975, 1071 (2005)).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nova Law Review may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Law: The PCAOB and Its Public/private Status'', 80 Notre Dame L. Rev. 975, 1071 (2005)).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

 

Your recent editing history at Nova Law Review‎‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
What about "do not add this promotional material" is it that you cannot understand? Randykitty (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply