Justiciero1811

Justiciero1811, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Justiciero1811! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Justiciero1811, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Altered Walter (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Derwick Associates. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Altered Walter (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV and Undue Weight discussion on Derwick Page

Justiciero1811. Wikipedia must be kept neutral to any personal point of view. Your edits are in breach of the Wikipedia Guidelines and I have removed your edits. I have taken a look at the article's history and I have reported you to Wikipedia's Head Office as Wikipedia's administrators seem to not care about your edits. I have requested an audit into your behavior with hopes that swift action is taken against you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arctic M (talk • contribs) 11:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm FinanceReferee. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you added some content to a Wikipedia article that appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint. Unfortunately, this edit appears to give undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Your continuing edits and reversions to this article do not meet Wikipedia Standards. Your continuing reversion of changes to make sure your own POV is the only one offered is a violation of both undue weight and NPOV. Please stop editing this page in such a way that your POV is the only one available to readers.FinanceReferee (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello FinanceReferee, I am working to follow Wikipedia guidlines. The WP:UNDUE section of the WP:NPOV policy states that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." This means that to prevent undue weight, the page should reflect the amount of WP:RS on each topic. For instance, the power plant section currently involves around half of the sources, so it should reasonably be the most prominent section. The WP:UNDUE section also paraphrases Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia's fonder, saying "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." With this in mind, I am presenting the facts from various reports, and not trying to push any POV of my own. This means that if a statment is disputable, then Reliable Sources disputing the statment should be involved. Unfortunately, for example, a member's Linkedin page would be a self-published source and not prominent enough to suggest that a Reliable Source is wrong. Justiciero1811 (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Please contact me

Hi Justiciero1811;
Would you please get in contact with me? You can email me at philippewikimedia.org. I am the Director, Community Advocacy for the Wikimedia Foundation. I have a matter of importance that I urgently need to discuss with you. Thank you! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

After reading about all the lawsuits Derwick has been filing, I'm a little hesitant to give out my email address or personal information :( can you tell me what the issue is on my talk page?

Sorry to be so clandestine. Justiciero1811 (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I certainly understand your hesitation. I can tell you that it's definitely related to something you need to know about. Perhaps you could use a one-time "throw-away" email address? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, that should work. Just out of curiosity, is there a reason why you cannot tell me what this is all about on my talk page? I do not want other users to think that I am skirting protocol. Can I request that we have this conversation out in the open? Justiciero1811 (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I tell you what - would you be willing to have the conversation confidentially first, and then - at your own discretion - you can determine whether to make appropriate points public? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

COI

Please advise your relationship, if any, with Derwick Associates. Rich Farmbrough, 02:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC).

Note: I have raised this issue at WP:AN/I. Rich Farmbrough, 03:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, Justiciero1811. You have new messages at Hahc21's talk page.
Message added 00:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I answered. Of course you can copy it :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Derwick Associates for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Derwick Associates is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derwick Associates until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. jcgoble3 (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Derwick Associates

HI Justiciero1811. In regard to Derwick Associates, hopefully the request you placed at the dispute resolution noticeboard will play out well and solve the issues. If not, I was thinking of raising it at the conflict of interest noticeboard, as it seems that COI editing has been an ongoing problem, so it might be worth seeing if some editors more experienced with that sort of issue can help out. It isn't worth raising it there while the dispute resolution discussion is happening, as that may well be the best possible fix and there is no value in having discussions in multiple concurrent forums, but it may be worth trying if the current noticeboard doesn't solve it. - Bilby (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Thank you for the suggestion :) Hopefully everything can get worked out on the DR/N Justiciero1811 (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I suspect that the apparent ongoing COI issues are serious enough that this will probably have to go back to AN/I or the COI noticeboard to have it worked out, whatever eventuates, but maybe the dispute resolution will go well. I'm glad it has been opened. Engaging in discussion is the best way forward, especially if there are still COI concerns. - Bilby (talk) 03:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Derwick August

Hi Justiciero! I noticed you've made some edits to Derwick Associates in the past and I recently made some changes to the page, along with related pages, myself to try and improve it. I wanted to invite you to take a look at the current version and see what you think. Righteousskills (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)