Jodiebrownlee

March 2014

Hello, Jodiebrownlee. 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 Gene Pierson, 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 Wikipedia: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. Flat Out let's discuss it 22:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Gene Pierson, 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. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Gene Pierson, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Flat out, I have followed the wiki guidelines for these edits, responding to your requests, and cannot understand why you keep reverting them. You keep telling me there is something wrong with the edit, I address it and yet still you revert it. This time you said "Don't remove or add content without a valid reason" and yet I gave a valid reason for each tiny change I made. Please check. You also said that the additions and deletions do not appear to be constructive. I corrected punctuation (you had three inverted comma's around each name!), added information from the body to create a more accurate introduction. The introduction is very sparse compared to other wikipedia pages. I also included references. What can possibly be wrong with the tiny edits I made today? I believe you are being obstructive now and will take this further. I am sorry it has come to this. You have violated the four reverts rule. Jodiebrownlee (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I have explained in detail what the issues are, below, on the article's talk page and on my talk page. One of your edits removed a referenced sentence without explanation, another changed the formatting by removing bold {see WP:MOS } and added a paragraph that was promotional in tone and not appropriate for the lead section. There is no four reverts rule, it is a three revert rule and I haven't exceeded it. Perhaps you could read WP:3RR again and also re-read conflict of interest because you don't seem to understand it. Feel free to take the issue further but beware of the boomerang. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Gene Pierson

Whilst I fully support your input on the article - you need to ensure that any information that you add are from a neutral point of view (i.e.encyclopedic) they also need to be verified with references that are not just bare urls or links to other artists or links to articles which are based on this wikipedia article, they need to be independent and verifiable not just supporting claims made regarding the work of the subject. If the reference has already been used in the article you don't need to re-state the reference but use the same reference. Dan arndt (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate what Dan said above. Please keep your entries to neutral wording that are supported with reliable and verifiable sources. Please also read WP:COI. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It has been made perfectly clear to you that changing the article's lead to suit the wishes of the subject is not appropriate. Words such as "local" are important in the context of the article and you should not delete words to suit your point of view. Your edit summaries do not accurately describe your changes, and you are editing with a clear conflict of interest. Please consider this your final warning. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)