Charlesgasparino

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Charlesgasparino. 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 COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the COI guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• 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 must 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 WP:PAID).

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 20:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC) thanks but the insertion of some fabricated controversy into my bio is damaging to my reputation thats why i removed it--cg

I was not threatening a lawsuit; I was simply stating the reference to the Pulitizer Controversy was unfair and damaging. here's more: The reason for my deletion of the "pulitzer claim" part of my bio is that it is a false representation of what i did, which at worst was a mistake in a long career. Yet wikipedia makes a significant part of my career without providing the full context, which is totally unfair and damaging to me. Kevin Magee, who ran Fox Business at the time said the following to TV Newser: "I just think this whole thing is a tempest in a thimble at this point. What we are talking about is the use of the word ‘nominated,’ Charlie was lucky enough, or worked hard enough to have his work selected by the Wall Street Journal editors to be submitted to the Pulitzer committee. It was never anything more than that, I would probably call that nominated myself. We both found out last week that they prefer you not call that nominated. So we changed his bio and his references, it was not a big deal for us and not a big deal for him. It is a gigantic honor to have your work chosen by the editors of the Wall Street Journal, and he is justifiably proud of that, as are we for that matter.” https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/fbns-charlie-gasparino-latest-to-be-caught-in-pulitzer-flap/136856/

I would like this reference removed immediately. Wikipedia is distorting what i did and relying on the word of competitors. Also I should point out, the Wall Street Journal "nominates" only a certain number of people for the Pulitzer every year. They internally used the word "nominate," which is what I did to make sure I didnt call myself a finalist. I had no idea that finalists are called nominated finalists. Again please take it down

Edit warring warning

Your recent editing history at Charles Gasparino shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extremely hot (talk • contribs) 22:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I take my reputation seriously; adding derogatory information, false in nature, hurts my reputation. My suggestion: whoever is doing it should stop and wikipedia should stop aiding them

the pulitzer claim entry of my bio should be removed immediately

The reason for my deletion of the "pulitzer claim" part of my bio is that it is a false representation of what i did, which at worst was a mistake in a long career. Yet wikipedia makes a significant part of my career leaving. Its totally unfair and damaging to me. Kevin Magee, who ran Fox Business at the time said the following to TV Newser: I just think this whole thing is a tempest in a thimble at this point. What we are talking about is the use of the word ‘nominated,’ Charlie was lucky enough, or worked hard enough to have his work selected by the Wall Street Journal editors to be submitted to the Pulitzer committee. It was never anything more than that, I would probably call that nominated myself. We both found out last week that they prefer you not call that nominated. So we changed his bio and his references, it was not a big deal for us and not a big deal for him. It is a gigantic honor to have your work chosen by the editors of the Wall Street Journal, and he is justifiably proud of that, as are we for that matter.” https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/fbns-charlie-gasparino-latest-to-be-caught-in-pulitzer-flap/136856/

I would like this reference removed immediately. Wikipedia is distorting what i did and relying on the word of competitors. Also I should point out, the Wall Street Journal "nominates" only a certain number of people for the Pulitzer every year. They internally used the word "nominate," which is what I did to make sure I didnt call myself a finalist. I had no idea that finalists are called nominated finalists. Again please take it down. CGcg (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• I've revoked your access to this page. Your comments have become abusive (repetitious, strident, and misleading).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Charlesgasparino (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #25851 was submitted on Jul 09, 2019 23:27:52. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)