User talk:Everettstern

Welcome!

Hello, Everettstern, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Confirming identity
Hi. Please email info-en-q@wikimedia.org to confirm that you are (or represent) Everett Stern. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 13:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I just emailed the email address you provided with the following message. "Hi, I am Everett Stern and I will do whatever is necessary to resolve this issue. I want the article to be upgraded and of the best neutral quality. I am not trying to manipulate the system. I only want an article of the highest integrity. May you please remove many of the posts on the COI talk page as they are not appropriate or help with the current situation. Thank you for your help.

-Everett A. Stern -- Everettstern (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Good, thanks. I believe they will send you the standard advice to biography subjects, which I believe I originally wrote. In a nutshell: p[lease remain calm, do not mention lawyers, and make specific, focussed requests (of the form "in para X, please change Y to Z, based on this source") on the Talk page. That way the admins - people like me - can best protect you against any who have ill intent. You can ask for direct help by placing helpme (follow the link for details of how to use it) on this talk page. I hope you get a satisfactory resolution of your concerns. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I personally emailed the emergency response team a couple of months ago about the user who is making the conflict claim. I need the admins to see the full scope of the situation. What do I do and how do I resolve this? If there is anything in the article that is not true then I encourage anyone to remove it. I am not writing the article. I did pay one person to make changes after the page was attacked and after I was threatened. Should I post the emails to the Admins or explain the situation? Please provide me with detailed instructions as I am not used to this system. The allegations being made against me are serious and I want to resolve this right away. Thank you for your time and help. Everettstern (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Everettstern, if there are issues with the article about you, you should post on the Talk page of the article so that the issues can be resolved. Asking for a discussion on your user talk page will not garner enough notice to be able to form a consensus, and the records will not be as easy to track down. Primefac (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Article talk page
That discussion was not exemplary, I am sorry this was not dealt with sooner. Is closing the discussion enough, or do you want me to remove it? I think leaving it may result in a faster transition to productive discussion, but I could be wrong. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

May you please close and remove it. Everettstern (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia
Hi Everettstern I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Everettstern. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest.

Editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. If you have a conflict of interest, please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with (see WP:COI);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies. 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 the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Comments and requests
Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do.

First, the conflict of interest level. Management of COI in Wikipedia has two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. You have disclosed that you are Evertt Stern and I understand that you have confirmed that you are not impersonating him. Since you are editing under your own name, disclosure is done.

The peer review" piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and viola there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary. What we ask editors who have a COI to do, is a) if you create an article, submit it through the WP:AFC process so it can be reviewed before it publishes. b) And if you want to change content in an existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. You can make the edit request easily - and provide notice to the community of your request - by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline. I made that easy for you by adding a section to the beige box at the top of the Talk page of the article about you - there is a link at "click here" in that section -- if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request.

I also encourage you to familiarize yourself with the relevant policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is not a wild west - over the years, the community has put in place a whole forest of policies and guidelines to govern content and editor behavior. Here are some essential ones you should read and understand, if you want to make arguments about what content should stay and go.
 * WP:OR - no original research is allowed -instead...
 * WP:VERIFY - everything must be based on reliable sources (as we define them - see WP:RS)
 * WP:NPOV - this does not mean what most people think it means. it means that you read the most recent and best reliable sources you can find, and figure out what the mainstream view is, and that is what gets the most WP:WEIGHT.  This does not mean "fair and balanced"
 * WP:BLP - our policy on articles about living people. Please do read the ones above, so that you can make sense of this.

You may also want to read this, and also this: WP:Wikipedia is in the real world.

Would you please agree to abide by the peer review process I mentioned above? Thanks. Please let me know if you have any questions about how Wikipedia works (I am not addressing the content about which you are concerned, just how Wikipedia works) Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely agree to abiding by the rules. My concern is that the situation of a previous extortion attempt is being ignored. Moreover, other users are not following the rules by making malicious comments on my talk page. I want a full peer review of my Wikipedia page because I want it as accurate as possible. I take pride in the integrity of the article. It is very frustrating that the previous reported incident is being ignored and the editor that proposed the page for deletion and the conflict is making very concerning allegations about me and my business. I do not think Wikipedia should be a forum for personal attacks or agendas. Everettstern (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Admin notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladysif (talk • contribs) 18:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Some things
Hi Everettstern. I moved your latest post at Talk:Everett Stern to its own section and added Template:Request edit to let other editors know that you are requesting a changes be made to the article. This is pretty much the standard way Wikipedia ask editors with a conflict of interest to request that changes be made to articles written about them or subjects to which they are connected. Doing things this way adds the article to a category page of other articles where such requests are made which are monitored by volunteers who try to help answer them. You can find out more about this in Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Edit requests. I suggest you (and your representatives) propose any further changes you feel should be made to the article in this manner because it will make it much easier to help. Please try to keep requests as simple and as easy to understand as possible since this will make it easier to respond to since requests which are too vague or which request too many changes at once often are skipped over, declined or only partially answered. Moreover, if you requesting any content be added/removed which might be considered contentious, please also provide a link to reliable source in support. If you can properly format the source as a citation then that's one less thing which needs to be done by whomever answers the request, but just providing a link which as explained in WP:EL will suffice in most cases. It's very important though that you provide some source in support of any changes you'd like made (except for fairly obvious things) and not just expect the person answering the request to go digging for one or simply take you at your word. Finally, you might want to considered better clarify your conflict of interest on your user page per WP:DISCLOSECOI so that people don't mistake this account for trying someone trying to impersonate you. This will also make it easier for others to help you. As I suggested on the article talk page, emailing OTRS and having your account verified is one way this can be done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to do anything... I will let the Wiki foundation do what they want. I am bowing out of this. Everettstern (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Editors at your article
Did you ever figure out what's going on with all these single purpose accounts that keep coming to edit your article? I assume the extortion stuff is longer over. I think you'll agree that a lot of them seem to be promoting you, in fact you're asking us to keep the work of one of them, Sportsplex03. As I mentioned at BLPN, it's not even hard to see that some of them have been blocked for sockpuppetry. The obvious conclusion to anyone of us with experience here is that someone is paying them. As I guess even you know by now, they're not helping. They're violating core policies here by engaging in paid editing without proper disclosure and inappropriately using multiple accounts. And because their edits are so poor, they're wasting editing time cleaning up after them. And frankly, they're probably turning off experienced editors from improving the article since we're all volunteers and so improving an article without that mess seems a more productive use of our time. So if you ever figured it out, you might want to ask this person to stop. To be clear, I'm in no way suggesting you make any sort of threat. But since they seem to be trying to promote you and your company, I assume whoever it is thinks they're helping you and they'll probably listen if you just ask them to stop. Nil Einne (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Nil Einne I have no idea what is going on with my page. This is why I read for hours how to post to message boards and have been posting. I do not know the users who are posting to my page nor can I ask them to stop. I do not know who they are. I have my Wikipedia on alerts and I woke up a couple of days ago with tons of alerts. I do not believe most users in the last couple of days have been trying to help me. I defended certain users because I thought they were helping me with their views, but now I question even their motives. Maybe the goal was to cause this disruption. There is absolutely no direction by me. I was in shock to see so many additions to my page and then the next day tons of people are ripping my page apart as you can see in one of the versions. It came as a complete surprise and I do not know what to do. I thought maybe it was Primefac because he was following my page for so long. I did not know if HSBC Bank was paying all these people. I am trying to make a significant positive difference by fighting for what is right and I think I have proven that to the public, but I do have a great deal of enemies. I have been threatened numerous times not on Wikipedia but in my own personal life. Overall, I just want Wikipedia to have my page accurate. If the consensus that the page is accurate now then I completely accept that. As for all of these changes and the alerts I was getting I thought it may be HSBC, Hezbollah members (who also are on Wikipedia or certain Drug Cartel Members.) I was not sure if Primefac was on my side but then another user said Primefac has edited over 140,000 articles so then this morning I thought to myself maybe he is trying to protect the page. What I thought was trolling really was protecting. Nil Einne I was fine with the page before the edit war a couple of days ago. I believe the page is ok now because it appears the Wikipedia community has come to a consensus. I have not been approached by anyone trying to extort me except for that one issue a long time ago. I wish I had an answer for you, but I do not know what is happening. As an Intelligence Director I need to focus on helping people with my Private Intelligence Agency and building my reputation for another U.S. Senate run. I do not mean any disrespect towards Wikipedia, but I do not have time to comment on my own page. I want Wikipedia to handle my page as yes it is a conflict of interest when I jump in. I should not have to jump in, but the edit war that just happened really made me nervous as the page was seriously harmed. When people look me up the Wikipedia page is the first thing they see. I understand Wikipedia is NOT supposed to be a PR piece. This is an online encyclopedia that I want to reflect my life in an honest way. I do believe people are being paid to go against my page and I am sure it is HSBC related. It is what it is. I just ask that the admins watch my page and keep it accurate as it is not my place to have to jump in. Also I am not proficient in Wikipedia or how it works. When a user threatens to block me from my own page it makes me nervous and I do not know the intentions of that user. There is no way I can tell anyones motivations. The extortion issue before was very clear, but now I do not understand what is happening. I sincerely ask the Wikipedia community to watch my page because I believe most people can agree I am trying to make a significant positive difference. I am not sure if I am or if people agree with what I am doing... but I think most people can agree I am making a concerted effort. I cannot involve myself in Wikipedia comments as it is only hurting me as I am coming off the wrong way to users and admins simply because I do not know all the rules and systems. I ask the Wikipedia community to please give me the benefit of the doubt and understand that yes there are bad actors trying to harm my page. Who they are and their exact motivations - I do not know. Everettstern (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nil Einne I honestly do NOT believe these single user accounts are trying to help me. I think they are hurting me by causing disruption and getting me to take the bait. I agree that they are not helping the situation. The Wikipedia page was fine before this edit war. Why add the additional sources? It does not make sense. If the article was fine then why go in and try to just add sources? I cannot say the exact motivations, but I completely agree that the single users are hurting me. I want the Wikipedia community to shape my article. I do believe there are some users that are legitimately trying to help ensure the accuracy of the article, but I also believe there are some that are intentionally "helping" the page to cause me harm. Everettstern (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I am sure you have been through a lot in your life, and it can be stressful to see others have the ability to write about you on a large platform like Wikipedia without feeling like you have any control. I think it may help you if you try to come at this whole situation with a little more patience. Editors like Primefac and Drmies are experienced and respected editors, and we are all volunteers. Some of the other experienced editors that have left you advice here, such as Nil Einne and Marchjuly, are the most patient people that exist and they provide excellent advice. My one addition is to say that you should take a day or two and read what everyone has written to you. After that, use the article's talk page to suggest one or two discrete changes at a time and support them with good quality sources. I think you will find that editors will be willing to work with you, even if you do not always get the changes you want. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I sincerely apologize to the following users

Drmies Primefac Robert McClenon Marchjuly Nil Einne – wallyfromdilbert Please give me the benefit of the doubt. I am not a seasoned Wikipedia user and I am trying my best to navigate. I specifically apologize to Primefac and Drmies as I did not mean any disrespect to you both. I sincerely thought you were acting in bad faith, but now I realize it was the independent users that were acting in bad faith. I now see that Primefac was not trolling my page for 6 years, but was protecting it. Drmies you have every right to defend other users. I was not trying to attack, but to defend myself. You are right... It is not my article. As I said above I am not interested in this being a PR piece. I just want it accurate. Please understand that based on my past and my work as an Intelligence director I am on the radar of multiple intelligence agencies, terrorist organizations, and drug cartels. These people know what they are doing. I am not in control of 3rd parties. I cannot prevent someone from launching a "promotional" attack on the page where it causes a massive trigger where there is a massive response by admins and users. Please remember that the Wikipedia article represents my life and I went into a legitimate panic when I was getting alert after alert seeing what was happening to the page. This is why I jumped in to such an extreme. I have never posted on notice boards like this before or accused anyone of anything except for the extortion attempt a number of years ago. I sincerely ask the users listed above to understand that I am acting in good faith. Do not see a promotional change to my page as a so called positive move. I do not believe the changes made to my page by adding an insane number of citations was positive for me and I think you can all see that. What was the point of this? It was to cause me a problem. I do not want to be involved with the Everett Stern Wikipedia page. I greatly appreciate you are all volunteers and I appreciate you all caring enough to moderate the page. I just want neutrality and that is it. I do not want to get involved. I truly believe people are being paid off to make these kinds of attacks and I had no idea what was happening over the last couple of days. This is why you saw me get involved to a scale in which I did. I specifically apologize to Primefac as I did not know how much time you have volunteered to Wikipedia and that you were protecting my page from incidents like this. Please understand that jumped on a users band wagon when I should not have. What I should have done is gone to your talk page and raised the issue with you directly. I hope you all can understand my position and that I did not mean for all of this backlash and problems. I am not the one who started this issue. I went into panic mode and was not patient as – wallyfromdilbert recommended above. Again you all have my sincere apologies and I will not comment on any message boards anymore. Please close them as I do not have any issue with any user or the page. I will let the natural Wikipedia consensus take its course. Thank you for your understanding. Everettstern (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's a weird place sometimes, and most of us are just trying to do what we can to keep it on the straight and narrow. Some times it takes a village :-) Primefac (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Primefac I really apologize to you. I know you are acting in good faith and I appreciate you understanding where I am coming from. I really do not understand this world which is why I need to stay out of it as much as possible. After the last couple of days I finally understand what you and all the other volunteers roles are - to protect the neutrality of the articles even from my own lack of neutrality. I cannot possibly be neutral to my own article because the article is about me. You are protecting the article about me from myself... Thanks again for your understanding. I will let you and the community take it from here. - Everett Everettstern (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Everettstern: Well if you don't know then you don't know and you don't have to apologise for stuff you aren't involved in. If you do ever find out, do politely ask them to stop. As for the other stuff, most people here are a forgiving bunch so provided you stop with the unsupported accusations of bad faith, misbehaviour etc and instead focus on the content, it's no big deal. Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Nil Einne I do not know who the user is that you are referring to, but there is an organization I can ask. Maybe this organization is involved. I could be wrong about the organization but either way I will ask them to find out who is involved and get them to stop. I do not understand what has happened over the last couple of days with the page. I do not understand why tons of unnecessary sources were put on the page for no reason. I am not done with this situation yet... I am very aggravated that my page is being attacked in this way. I do however take the responsibility for jumping on the band wagon and making unnecessary accusations. The accusations stopped the second I realized what was really happening to the page. I can assure you I will be focusing on content and not users. I do not have any issues with any users. I misread the entire situation. I understand it is no big deal to you, but what happened with this situation is a big deal to me and I want to make sure it does not happen in the future. Again, I do not know the individuals involved, but I would like to ask a certain organization for help in getting these users identified, getting them to stop, or to get the organization to stop if it is them. I have certain connections I would like to ask. I need to be careful what I say in an open forum but I think you get the idea. I do not plan on being on the page anytime in the future and if I am it will only be in the appropriate manner on my talk page. If a moderator like Primefac or Drmies does not approve of something then I will accept it and move on. I have learned in over the last two days that I cannot possibly be neutral about my own page and I have to leave it to the wiki community and great very experienced like Primfac to help. I did not think of everyone as volunteers, I misread the situation, and I made serious mistakes over the last couple of days. I truly apologize to everyone about this because this is a very big deal for me as I pride myself on conducting my personal and business affairs with the highest integrity. Again, I am not letting this single user situation go. I do not know who these people are but I will use every resource and connections I have to find out and take action. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Everettstern (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not know who Sportsplex was, but they're blocked for being up to no good. They may have something to do with Academyprep, I don't know. Both are blocked; neither was found to "be" Everettstern. We can only guess at their relation to each other or to Everettstern, and at their motives. Panapublish may or may not have had anything to do with them; since they edited over three months ago, this cannot be established, nor (I think) are their edits identical to that of the other two. None of them strike me as really seasoned editors who took up a new identity to edit this article. This is not unexpected with the biographies of living people who have received a certain measure of publicity. It's also not really worthwhile pursuing, esp. now that a number of editors are keeping an eye on this article. Whatever their motives were, Primefac reverted and followed, as far as I can tell, policy and guidelines. What bothers me a bit here is the hint that you are going to ask "a certain organization" to look into this. I don't know what you mean with that rather vague remark, and I don't know how any "certain organization" other than maybe the Wikimedia Foundation could find out the identities of the people behind those accounts--but I do know that it's probably not going to be legal, and I also know that the Wikimedia Foundation is not going to investigate this relatively minor matter without serious proof of wrongdoing. (Yes, this kind of stuff, and this, that's minor.) Plus, I really do not want to be involved in any of that, since finding out the identity of editors is a most unacceptable thing. If I were you, I'd worry more about other things, like Christmas presents or finishing up the "Political career" section. Take care, Drmies (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Drmies I am going to stand down. I was trying to be vague to ensure the single users were not aware of my efforts, but if the legality is in question then yes I was going to reach out to the Wikipedia Foundation. You are right in that probably there are multiple editors watching the page. I can see from your message above that the situation is being handled. I appreciate your help. I am going to take this page off my watch list and focus on what you suggested. Thank you again for your help and diligence. Everettstern (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Primefac Thank you for looking after my page all of these years. I wish you and your family a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year! -Everett Everettstern (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Break

 * Hi Primefac I hope you had a great new year. I understand you are a volunteer so I apologize in advance if I am wasting your time. Please provide me with direction and advice so, I do not violate Wikipedia rules, therefore, I am doing the right thing. Moreover, I do not want to violate a conflict of interest rule creating actual edits to the Wikipedia page ,however, can I talk about the page in this type of forum? I tried creating a new section on my own talk page, but I could not figure out how to do it. Furthermore, the following credible news source came out yesterday. You may not find it credible and that is ok, but I believe it is so I am bringing it to your attention. Furthermore, can I introduce credible articles for moderators to review on talk pages? What are my best options? Please provide me with some direction so, I can keep the biography of a living person accurate while abiding by all Wikipedia rules. My overall concern is that I will be running again for U.S. Senate and I am controversial in general and I want to protect my page with a proactive approach from bad actors that do not have good intentions. The article is https://www.bankingdive.com/news/iran-sanctions-anti-money-laundering-hsbc-whistleblower/570522/ Thank you for your volunteered time and helpEverettstern (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Changes to Everett Stern should happen at Talk:Everett Stern. The best way to start a new discussion is to click the "New section" tab at the top of the talk page. If you're proposing changes you should use the request edit template to notify other editors that there is a new request. If you simply want to reply to a request, then do as you've done here and edit the appropriate section. Primefac (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Significant Article changes
Hi Primefac (talk)May you and the other editors please correct the page so it is in accordance with Wikipedia community standards. I am running for U.S. Senate and will be in the race to the end. My photo keeps being deleted and there is a statement that is not true about my policy beliefs. I believe in more regulation not less as I saw what happened with HSBC and losing regulatory standards. My mission in this race is to fight ring wing extremism and that is why I broke off from the Republican party. Please consider the following articles as both the New York Times and the Guardian state I testified to the January 6th committee against General Flynn. I am a moderate pro-democracy anti-trump politician. I took on the Republican party and suffered tremendous consequences as a result. I worked with the FBI to report domestic terrorism. I know you are very busy but please read the Guardian and New York Times articles. You will see that there was another person who was asked to extort politicians as well by the Patriot Caucus and Flynn. I say all of this because Americans are all invested in the PA U.S Senate race not just people who live in PA as whoever wins can change U.S. Senate red or blue for a long time. Whistleblowing on General Flynn and his Extortion plot was serious and had major implications that I believe the page should reflect. Most people i know rely on Wikipedia for the truth. People are looking me up and they need to see a Wikipedia page just like the other candidates and one that accurately reflects me as a living person. I am sincerely trying to fight for what is right and putting it on the line. in my humble opinion, I believe my page should be written so it is encyclopedic. Right now it has a banner on top saying the article is not written appropriately. I have done a tremendous amount since HSBC and the other wars I have launched as the intelligence director of Tactical Rabbit. It is not a matter of self-promotion, but facts. There have been a number of credible news stories I am featured in since the last major revision of the page. Again, this is not about showcasing achievements but making sure the American voter knows what I stand and fight for. I will go with whatever the Wikipedia community agrees upon as this is not my Wikipedia page. It is the communities. I just sincerely ask you and the other top editors to research and make the proper adjustments so the page accurately reflects my actions. There may not be a conviction yet against Flynn, but my actions of testifying to the FBI and the January 6th committee are significantly credible and verifiable actions. Please also note that my campaign managers were in control in the beginning of the race. My real views on things are on Twitter and clearly evident by my actions against Trump and right-wing extremism. I know you are very busy and I sincerely thank you for your help. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/21/michael-flynn-allies-allegedly-targeted-republicans-back-election-audits / https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/04/magazine/michael-flynn-2020-election.html / https://www.salon.com/2021/10/31/candidate-michael-flynn-trying-to-run-extortion-scheme-on-us-officials-to-reinstall/ https://www.salon.com/2021/10/31/candidate-michael-flynn-trying-to-run-extortion-scheme-on-us-officials-to-reinstall/ Everettstern (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I've been busy lately (primarily, moving in real life). If you put a Request edit at the top of your request on the article talk, it will notify uninvolved editors that something needs changing. I'll still look into it if I have time, but this will mean you're not waiting on me to do so. Primefac (talk) 07:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Primefac (talk). I hope your move goes well and you and your family are healthy and doing well. I really appreciate your help. Have a great day. Everettstern (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Everettstern (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * (talk) Thank you for taking the time to make changes that make the page more neutral. Thank you for helping me edit some of my own requests or responses as I am not very good with Wikipedia. Everettstern (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Primefac I have never been convicted of a crime in my entire life. The page appears to be being attacked. Everettstern (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like that content has been removed. Primefac (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Everettstern (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Primefac (talk) thank you and Drmies for taking the time to look into this. My issue is that the way the article is written or what is being put in the Wikipedia is very misleading. The DA dropped the charges of impersonation of an officer because I did not do it. The Wikipedia and the article it is pulling from are written is such a way where people will believe I impersonated an officer which is devastating to my reputation. I should not pay the price for a crime I did not commit. I am guilty of disorderly conduct and that is it. I feel that should be the only relevant thing about this incident. I am innocent to proven guilty and this paragraph paints a different picture than what happened. People are charged with crimes all day long. What is important in the United States is what you are actually guilty of. My lawyers are appealing the judges sentence next week and the paper will be sued. I am not litigious but I have to protect myself from politics. Again, I do not think federal agent should be mentioned because the full context is not there. People reading the bio will think I did something I did not. I think it should be factual and show what I am guilty of. Not peoples conjecture. I of course defer to the Wikipedia community. If you and the community do not agree with me that is ok. I am putting up a fight because this incident is very sensitive and I am not walking around impersonating officers. These people were trespassing and I used a red and blue tactical flashlight to get them away and tell them mitt income back. I said I was a federal candidate not agent and the article or the Wikipedia is showing what really happened. I am sorry to bother you with this but alot of people read about me on Wikipedia and I am taking a major reputation hit when I was falsely accused. Have a merry christmas Everettstern (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Significant Article changes
Hi Primefac Nil Einne Drmies Marchjuly Robert McClenon My article is extremely defamatory and false. I am sincerely asking for your help and the other volunteers so it is accurate. A news story came out in the Daily Local for Chester County that was Defamatory. My lawyers are suing the paper. From this paper a couple of other news sources picked up the story. Many of since dropped the story after vetting. I plead guilty to 4 counts not of disorderly conduct which is a mistameanor, but I got summary disorderly conduct which is like a traffic ticket. It does not even show up in the FBI database. It is local to PA. The judge is backed by the GOP and slammed me as retaliation for testifying to J6 against Flynn. The judge is up for election. My lawyers are appealing the sentence as it is extremely over the top for a first time offender getting the equivalent of a traffic ticket. What is important is that the DA withdrew the impersonation charges because they were not true and there was no way they could get a conviction. It is not right that the article says witnesses said I did x because I was falsy accused and not convicted. I was convicted of summary disorderly conduct for making too much noise. Not impersonating an officer. Again the first article is grossly false and there will be a major lawsuit. Politics PA already took down the article as well as a couple of others. What is being done to me is horrible because false reporting is destroying my reputation. The judge never ordered me to have mental health treatment as reported in the article and now on my wikipedia page. I do not believe something the equivalent of a traffic ticket should be on the page. Or anything regarding my mental health which is fine. I was told to plead guilty and get what most people do and that is a fine. I will be appealing everything and the attorney general will have to get involved. This was politics and not justice. You will see this one author and the Daily Local has been successfully sued for Defamation before by other parties. What this reporter did was wreckless. I sincerely ask it is not reflected on the Wikipedia page. I worked so hard to make a significant positive difference and my name is being destroyed. Everettstern (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I infer that I was notified because I either edited or commented on the article in the past, but it may have been a few years in the past, and I do not remember what if any my involvement with this article has been. The biographies of living persons noticeboard is a forum for the subject of a biography of a living person to state concerns that an article about them is inaccurate or harmful.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please assist with my page. I know it is the holidays coming up by my page is causing me serious harm. I did not commit the crimes the page is talking about and it is highly inappropriate to be mentioning my mental health. The author of the article being referenced has changed his headline 2 times now because it was false. Other major publications are taking that article down that they aggregate from. It is not a credible news source. I am guilty of summary disorderly conduct that is like a traffic ticket. That is all. It is for making too much noise. I was falsely accused of a crime and the DA withdrew the charges. The Wikipedia page is not accurate and causes me harm. Another user just commented on my request to change "Not done: This is the worst COI request I have ever seen. Nothing in this article is defamatory. Denied. Quetstar" I am not good with wikipedia and I find his comment not to be appropriate. Thank you for your time and help. Everettstern (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the complaint. The subject of the article (please note the change I made to your user page) pleaded guilty to four charges--is this not true? I removed the stuff from the lead. Your lengthy comments here suggest to me that you still do not understand important aspects of how we operate. First of all, you are commenting on things that aren't even in the article (our article). Second, "witnesses said" is indeed correct--apparently it was the police who said it, and I will correct it. Third, if there was a violation, it was that User:OceanGroveDave put that stuff in the lead, which was inappropriate. Fourth, if you want to argue anything at all, you should do so calmly and concisely--I think your argument boils down to "it's just a small-town paper", but I don't agree that that is a good argument. Fifth, as sad as I am about your mental health, this is unfortunately part of being in the public eye--but Wikipedia is not the right venue to protest this. If it hadn't happened, it wouldn't have been in the paper, and it wouldn't have been in Wikipedia. But arguing that the paper got it wrong is only going to go so far.I think I did you a solid already by taking it out of the lead; I pruned the actual content. That is all I can do for you; perhaps another admin agrees with you, in which case I'll be happy for you. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For what good it's worth, I agree with Drmies. Unfortunately, we can only report on what is in the sources. If a source says something, unless they recant or otherwise indicate they were wrong (or there is an overwhelming body of evidence to suggest it) then it is "fair game" so to speak to put in the article (assuming of course that it is not "undue" information). Also as indicated by Drmies, if you wish to request further changes and/or contest the content of the article, either the talk page or WP:BLPN are the place(s) to edit; pinging a half-dozen editors to your talk page is not ideal. Primefac (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Primefac (talk) thank you and Drmies for taking the time to look into this. My issue is that the way the article is written or what is being put in the Wikipedia is very misleading. The DA dropped the charges of impersonation of an officer because I did not do it. The Wikipedia and the article it is pulling from are written is such a way where people will believe I impersonated an officer which is devastating to my reputation. I should not pay the price for a crime I did not commit. I am guilty of disorderly conduct and that is it. I feel that should be the only relevant thing about this incident. I am innocent to proven guilty and this paragraph paints a different picture than what happened. People are charged with crimes all day long. What is important in the United States is what you are actually guilty of. My lawyers are appealing the judges sentence next week and the paper will be sued. I am not litigious but I have to protect myself from politics. Again, I do not think federal agent should be mentioned because the full context is not there. People reading the bio will think I did something I did not. I think it should be factual and show what I am guilty of. Not peoples conjecture. I of course defer to the Wikipedia community. If you and the community do not agree with me that is ok. I am putting up a fight because this incident is very sensitive and I am not walking around impersonating officers. These people were trespassing and I used a red and blue tactical flashlight to get them away and tell them mitt income back. I said I was a federal candidate not agent and the article or the Wikipedia is showing what really happened. I am sorry to bother you with this but alot of people read about me on Wikipedia and I am taking a major reputation hit when I was falsely accused. Have a merry christmasEverettstern (talk) 16:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Additional Sources - Critical Clarification
Dear volunteers, this is not my article. It is the communities. I respect whatever decisions you make. I am just asking for your time as volunteers to take a deep review of the Everett Stern page. I am asking because I came under heavy attack when I stood up for Democracy by battling it out with General Flynn leading to a 250 Million dollar lawsuit. I did the right thing and was punished as a result. I am reaching out to all of you to simply make the page as accurate as possible by examining my aforementioned suggestions. Thank you for your time, help, and consideration. Primefac Nil Einne Drmies Marchjuly Robert McClenonC.Fred I know you are all volunteers so I greatly appreciate your help. In an effort for efficiency I am going to simply list out some critical changes that need to be made. Everettstern (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Please add the source https://www.bankingdive.com/news/iran-sanctions-anti-money-laundering-hsbc-whistleblower/570522/ because it solidifies that I was part of the 1.9 billion dollar fine against HSBC. There are people trying to harm my credibility by saying I was not the whistleblower. The vetted statements in this article I believe are important. "Everett Stern, a former corporate whistleblower whose work with CIA investigators uncovered HSBC’s international money laundering activities in 2012." The article goes on to describe my impact on the 1.92 billion dollar fine against HSBC. The deferred prosecution agreement went up to 2010 and I started in 2010, but the transactions I sent to the CIA and later the FBI were from 2000 - the current time I was at HSBC because I had access to the a system called CAMP Customer Alert Monitoring Program, where I was able to see illicit wire transfers from extensive prior year history of HSBC. This source expounds on the "look back" on older transactions from years before. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-compliance-delaware/special-report-lapses-persist-at-hsbc-money-laundering-watchdog-idUSBRE86C18H20120714
 * 2) The personal life section is not accurate. The police were wrong in saying I impersonated a Federal Agent because the DA dropped that charge. I did not impersonate an office therefore the DA had no basis to continue the prosecution. The police and other authorities initially evaluate situations wrong all the time hence innocent people get arrested. I was convicted of Summary Disorderly Conduct - that is all. If I actually impersonated an officer I would have not been given a Summons which is the equivalent of a traffic citation. I do not have a misdemeanor record as is being shown on Wikipedia. Please remove "police said I impersonated an officer" because it is misleading to people. I was not convicted of that and was found innocent of that crime. Please change Disorderly Conduct to Summary Disorderly Conduct as Disorderly conduct is a Misdemeanor not a Summary offense which is a big difference. I was convicted of a very minor crime, but the judge railroaded me due to politics. It happens. My credibly was tried to be harmed by the ordering of a mental health exam, but I passed the evaluation. I do not have a mental illness or need treatment. I can provide documentation of from the doctor that conducted the evaluation. Please add that I passed the mental health evaluation.
 * 3) I want to clear my name. The source being used in the negative personal life section should be removed entirely becauseI was horribly defamed when the Daily Local reported as the headline "Fmr. U.S. Senate Candidate Everett Stern plead guilty to impersonation of an officer." That headline was absolutely false. The personal life section was created right when that headline came out. I did not impersonate an officer and I did not plead guilty to that crime. I received a Summary Citation. The Daily Local recently changed the story headline to "Everett Stern pleads guilty to Summary Counts." Which is a big difference. I believe Wikipedia should report the facts and not what people think. It does not matter what the police thought I did. I was innocent and the justice system dropped the false impersonation charge. The aforementioned is not reflected in the personal life section. I believe the article should simply state I was convicted of Summary Disorderly Conduct which is factual. There should be no mention of impersonation of an officer because it did not happen and the newspaper changed their headline. Please use a wayback machine to see the newspaper printed false and defamatory information on me.
 * 4) I did not drop out of the U.S. Senate race due to low polling numbers. My numbers were actually high for running as an independent and I was messing up the race because it was so tight. I dropped out of the race and endorsed Fetterman because Democracy was at risk. I could not have a Flynn or Tump backed candidate in office. Please see the following articles: Independent Candidate Drops out, Backs Fetterman: 'Democracy at Risk' https://www.newsweek.com/independent-candidate-drops-out-backs-fetterman-democracy-risk-1754678 and https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/video/independent-us-senate-candidate-everett-stern-drops-out-of-race/
 * Two-and-one-half years ago, I said that the place to discuss concerns about untrue material in an article about a living person is either the article talk page or the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Please discuss your concerns about Everett Stern at the biographies of living persons noticeboard.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing in here looks like a decent edit request. The entire thing is one gigantic unreadable paragraph. There is one reference offered--but it's bankingdive.com, which doesn't even look like a reliable secondary source. If you want anything to be changed in here you will need to make much more clear what you want, and why we should change anything given our policies and guidelines. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Drmies (talk) Hi Drmies, my apologies. I am trying to explain things appropriately. Please let me know how I should explain things better and handle this. I would not waste your time with bad edit requests. I am just not explaining myself well. Please assist me in how I can better explain and help the volunteer team understand. My apologies again, I am still very weak on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and help. Everettstern (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am also trying to be very careful what I say as certain bad actors are using my comments on Wikipedia against me. I am trying my best to explain and I feel horrible as you are all volunteers taking your time. Please help me be able to put forth a good edit request. Do you have an example? One editor said I should be doing it on the talk page of the article but I am nervous because of what can be used against me. Please let me know of an example of a good edit request so I do not create an unintentional unreadable paragraph. Everettstern (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You can look at Edit requests, for starters, which has some tips (and some advanced info which may not be useful to you). If you place a "formal" edit request, it will end up on this page, likely, given the COI: User:AnomieBOT/COIREQTable. I'm looking at a few. I would not do it this way: too big, too much stuff. This is not bad, and this is absolutely awful. This isn't too bad, but (kind of like yours) it offers NO reliable secondary sources.Take it one thing at a time; write concisely, and explain what's wrong and what needs to be fixed. Try not to write a short story while you're placing a request: one or two sentences should do it. No one is interested in arguments and theories: we are interested in making changes based on reliable secondary sources. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thank you for taking the time to explain. I will redo. I am still confused though as to where I post. Should I continue using my talk page? Have a great day and thanks again for taking the time to point me in the right direction. -Everett Everettstern (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, place it on the article talk page. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)