User talk:WalterWhite72

May 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Kevin Paffrath has been reverted. Your edit here to Kevin Paffrath was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/user/MeetKevin) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of interest regarding Kevin Paffrath
Hello, WalterWhite72. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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 WP: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. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Still editing
You have an obvious conflict of interest and you must declare it. If you work directly or indirectly for an organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. If you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, 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:WalterWhite72. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message. Also read the following regarding writing an article:
 * you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
 * The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:
 * significant coverage in
 * independent,
 * multiple,
 * reliable,
 * secondary sources.
 * Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability.


 * You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.
 * There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
 * You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. You must also reply to the COI request above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Kevin Paffrath
Please see the talk page discussion that found consensus on describing Paffrath in the lead, and stop edit-warring. Schazjmd  (talk)  23:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on Kevin Paffrath, may have been a change that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When making possibly controversial changes, it is good practice to first discuss your edit on the article's talk page before making it, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Kevin Paffrath. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

--Adding NEW, factual information is not "edit warring," especially AFTER a "talk page" discussion as been posted, but not yet responded to by those "warring back." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kevin_Paffrath#Landlord WalterWhite72 (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to review the rules about edit warring, especially Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Firefangledfeathers, I disagree with your argument: I provided factual evidence to a wiki article that is now the subject of dispute. I'm providing facts and more value. We are discussing it in the talk page actively. The discussion is NOT complete. The discussion is over the removal of facts and evidence. That should be discussed per wiki guidelines. If opinion were added, it should be removed. But fact has been added.

WalterWhite72 (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the discussion is complete either. I see that you are relatively new here, and this is a situation where your lack of knowledge of the rules is causing harm. I am opposed to you in the content argument but am eager to support you in your knowledge of the rules. The policies and guidelines involved here are WP:ONUS, WP:EW, and WP:BRD (maybe more). I guarantee that a full reading of those will show you that your recent reverts have been transgressive. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Read the pages and understand the edit thing, I suppose the frustration (not an excuse) is that no one is moderating the additional factual information trying to be contributed. What’s the next step? Right now it appears I’ve been banned and no one cares about the facts being contributed (very disappointing). WalterWhite72 (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Also just saw revision history and appears you’re also just undoing added facts with citations, which is odd because isn’t the point of Wikipedia to add truth? WalterWhite72 (talk) 04:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi there! I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "moderating the factual information", but I can definitely empathize with the frustration. I have uncountable examples where well-sourced content that I feel distinctly improves an article is not accepted by community consensus. My general practice is to ensure that I've communicated my reasoning clearly and concisely and then hope that other editors come along who agree. I don't have personal experience with these, but I know WP:DRN and noticeboards like WP:NPOVN are available when discussions stall.Regarding my recent edit, normally I would ask for us to keep content-related discussion at the talk page, but I do think it would be wise for you to let things cool down a bit at Talk:Kevin Paffrath before heading back in. I reverted (apart from the user conduct issues) because the information is already in the article. I don't think any readers will walk away from the version I restored without understanding that Paffrath is an entrepreneur working in the world of personal finance and real estate. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
 You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Kevin Paffrath) for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ ⅃ϘƧ  03:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you going to help the dispute or just prevent editing? WalterWhite72 (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This is pretty obviously you. I would warn you that evading your block will very likely lead to far longer, and harsher restrictions. I'm going to have to semi-protect the article now in order to protect the project from your edit warring. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ ⅃ϘƧ  04:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Kevin Paffrath DRN
You manually top-posted a request for moderation for the Kevin Paffrath article to the DRN page. The request was not made through the automated interface, and was made at the top rather than the bottom of the page. This confuses the archival bot, and I will be removing it manually. I have not researched the history to see whether the preconditions have been met for moderated discussion of Kevin Paffrath, but I would recommend some dispute resolution procedure rather than edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

A Further Note
I have looked at Talk:Kevin Paffrath. It appears that your posts to that page are excessively lengthy, and do not really constitute discussion. I haven't considered them in detail. Overly long posts may make the poster feel better, but they often do not communicate. Try to be more concise when you come off block. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Promotional editing and other disruption by a single-purpose account. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Kevin Paffrath) for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Izno (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)