User talk:Landrena

January 2014
Hello, Landrena. 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 Miles Jesu, 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 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.

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. Elizium23 (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Miles Jesu, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Miles Jesu, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Elizium23 - if you read the edit summaries, you can see that I am attempting to updated the page with the corrected information. There are sites and links that are not longer valid, that are no longer hosted as well as information that has been updated since the last major edit.

The goal here is not to change the site in one way or another, only to validate and correct errors in it. Landrena (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would ask you to please be more careful with your edits. This one removed relevant categories and sites critical of MJ, what is your defense for it? This one removed a valid reliable secondary source, how do you explain that? Finally, in this edit yet another reference was removed, while you added a lot of information about the general elections in the first person plural. The first paragraph is not so problematic, as it contains encyclopedic, but the second paragraph violates the neutral point-of-view policy here at Wikipedia and reads like advertising copy rather than an article in an encyclopedia. This is exactly what our conflict-of-interest policy seeks to avoid. If you are connected or paid by this organization then you have a conflict of interest, and you are strongly discouraged from editing this article directly. Your best course of action is to declare your COI and for anything more than a minor cosmetic edit, propose it on the talk page and allow other interested editors to evaluate them for incorporation into the article itself. It is also prohibited to edit-war in order to force your changes into the article against the wishes of other editors. Both of us are currently at three reverts so it would be inadvisable for us to continue reverting today. I suggest that you use the article talk page to discuss your changes and attempt to justify them. Elizium23 (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Elizium23 - I appreciate your input, very helpful. As for "site critical", seems irrelevant and derogatory, plus the blog had not been updated since 2011, stale. There isn't a "sites critcal" of say the White House, NFL, Justin Bieber even, but I did notice there was something on Subway restaurants page after doing a bit of browsing. Perhaps over reaching - I know the man who added those links, lets just say his middle name is trouble, but again, you are correct I probably over stepped. As for the other mentioned, Miles Jesu is not Opus, never has been, never will be, it needs to not be promoted. And lastly the link that speaks of John Gummer is so poorly written, again probably over stepped on that one too.

Moving forward, my goal is to have this page be a better representation of what the organization is and does. Miles Jesu will always have critics. Based on your direction I'll begin the use of the article talk page and declare my COI moving forward.

Again, thank you for your direction and I apologize for the obvious frustration I've caused you. I look forward to continuing our conversation, in a much more productive reference.

Landrena (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)