User talk:YesCA rep

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, YesCA rep. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Yes California, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. GABgab 16:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, from the special projects director of Yes California Organization. I have been tasked with the duty of monitoring and helping to maintain the integrity of, our online presence. It came to my attention that edits have recently been made by a group that is engaging in online slander as a means to subvert our organization and its mission. I have removed the edits several times, but have since been blocked. I see that discussion is required, so here it is. First of all, let me begin by saying that i used to come to Wikipedia for most of my references, but have had to stop ever since trolls became the accepted norm here. I am appalled that my removal of inaccurate articles being used as reference for slander, articles that have proven to be propaganda, would then be met with such a reaction as to put it all back. I am not completely shocked, as I now have to wonder how many of your "editors" here are actually the ones engaging in the rule breaking activities. Like I said, i lost faith in the site a long time ago, once I met a person who is an editor here, as well as admitted troll. He told me the tactics and how to employ them when he thought I was going to join his company... A company of trolls. So, I implore you to restore my editing abilities, or remove the page all together. To continue the spread of slander and false information, coming from propaganda, will lead me to believe that Wikipedia IS the source of the spread of propaganda and blatant misinformation... so please, prove me wrong. Take off the "edits" made to the pages in question, please. To accuse me of block evasion, then block me... To ban me permanently without even giving time for response... This is the method of Reich styled propaganda. This is where I leave the conversation in your hands, just know.... This nansy you keep bringing up, is not me. I am, first off, a man... Also, not named something girly like frigging "nansy". Just sayin', bro.... YesCA rep (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Yes California. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Wikishovel (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2016 (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.
 * Jesus Christ, Nansy, you just don't give up, do you? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

There have been two problems identified with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, from the special projects director of Yes California Organization. I have been tasked with the duty of monitoring and helping to maintain the integrity of, our online presence. It came to my attention that edits have recently been made by a group that is engaging in online slander as a means to subvert our organization and its mission. I have removed the edits several times, but have since been blocked. I see that discussion is required, so here it is. First of all, let me begin by saying that i used to come to Wikipedia for most of my references, but have had to stop ever since trolls became the accepted norm here. I am appalled that my removal of inaccurate articles being used as reference for slander, articles that have proven to be propaganda, would then be met with such a reaction as to put it all back. I am not completely shocked, as I now have to wonder how many of your "editors" here are actually the ones engaging in the rule breaking activities. Like I said, i lost faith in the site a long time ago, once I met a person who is an editor here, as well as admitted troll. He told me the tactics and how to employ them when he thought I was going to join his company... A company of trolls. So, I implore you to restore my editing abilities, or remove the page all together. To continue the spread of slander and false information, coming from propaganda, will lead me to believe that Wikipedia IS the source of the spread of propaganda and blatant misinformation... so please, prove me wrong. Take off the "edits" made to the pages in question, please. To accuse me of block evasion, then block me... To ban me permanently without even giving time for response... This is the method of Reich styled propaganda. This is where I leave the conversation in your hands, just know.... This nansy you keep bringing up, is not me. I am, first off, a man... Also, not named something girly like frigging "nansy". Just sayin', bro.... YesCA rep (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If you really want or expect to be unblocked I suggest you crefully re-read the block notice and try again. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It should also be noted, OPINION articles are being used as "factual reference". That there is a HUGE blow to the integrity of the site and its own system. YesCA rep (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Non-Admin. Accusing the other editors of making "slanderous", "falsehood" and "propaganda" edits constitutes a legal threat and I seriously doubt any administrator will want to unblock you. If you want even a chance of getting unblocked, I strongly suggest that firstly, you rescind your threats from the unblock request and then address the issue that is you editing with a conflict of interest and advertising your company. In addition, if you're being paid by your employer to edit Wikipedia, you MUST disclose it. Zyc1174 (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)