User talk:Dallas.jackson.spsx

June 2019
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Superior Essex. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

how is adding history to a company page disruptive to wikipedia?

it is all factual historical events that are relevant to the page. I am following the guidelines.

I will be doing this for other magnet wire and pioneers in the EV space. so I would like to have this resolved. thanks.Dallas.jackson.spsx (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I am following the formula that is used on the GE page.... is this page disruptive?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_ElectricDallas.jackson.spsx (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Dallas.jackson.spsx. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Superior Essex, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Dallas.jackson.spsx. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. shoy (reactions) 14:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
 Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 14:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)