User talk:Jfrankparnell

Note
--Neil N  talk to me 19:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Neil N  talk to me 20:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Travis Allen article
Hello, I'm Bobvillage. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. -Bobvillage (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
Your recent editing history at Travis Allen 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.You were actively engaged in anedit war. Please use the Talk page for article in the future. Thanks!

February 2022
Hello, Jfrankparnell. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Scott Baugh, 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, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. KidAd •  SPEAK  22:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not replying sooner. I do not have a conflict of interest here. I have been writing about Orange County politics for many years, and have extensive first-hand, institutional knowledge about Orange County politics.  The section in this article regarding the 1995 recall of Assemblywoman Doris Allen was very superficial and contained inaccuracies.  The section on the prosecution of Assemblyman Scott Baugh was rife with factual errors and extraneous information, and lacked context.  The edits and additions I made are absolutely factual and substantiated with citations.
 * Thank you for reaching out and I apologize again for not seeing you message and replying sooner. Jfrankparnell (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
 Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must: Drmies (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
 * State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
 * Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

You were asked last month to disclose whatever conflict of interest you have; you did not address the matter but instead continued making edits that smack of COI editing. I have no choice but to block you. As soon as you actually read the relevant policies and guidelines, address the matter, and disclose your COI, you will remain blocked. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * My apologies. I did not see the request for a disclosure of a conflict of interest, or I would have responded. For the record, I do not have a conflict of interest. I am not paid or employed by any campaign or candidate.
 * The edits I made are completely and totally factual. They are amply cited from both contemporary media accounts and legal documents.
 * I respect that you seek to protect Wikipedia's integrity. And with respect, challenges to an edit or addition should be based on whether or not they are factual. Jfrankparnell (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)