User talk:Jeanninegrimm
James L Resseguie
[edit]Do you have some sort of relationship to this person? If so, you should probably stop inserting links to his work all over the place. See WP:Conflict of Interest. If not, please stop doing it anyway. Harold the Sheep (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I am his research assistant. His scholarship is established by many peer-reviewed publications and his work is certainly pertinent to this page and others. I think it is a justifiable source for people using this site to link to. I have used his work frequently when teaching. Not sure why it is being deleted.Jeanninegrimm (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 30
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Defamiliarization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fabula (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 6
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Metaphor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Similitude (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
April 2020
[edit]
Hello, I'm WikiHannibal. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Aliteration, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
COI
[edit]Hi, you keep adding info to articles using James L. Resseguie works as refs. That seems like WP:PROMOTION. You have been already notified about WP:COIEDIT in 2019. Please stop that. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
December 2020
[edit]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising, as you did at James L. Resseguie. This edit by MrOllie piqued my interest, and a bit of browsing through your history reveals that adding books by Resseguie (and adding material to his article) seems to be the only thing that you are doing here. That's not cool. At the very least you could have declared that conflict of interest (see WP:COIDECLARE), but I think you have simply gone too far, even after warnings here on your talk page. So, you may no longer add references to his books to any articles, nor edit his article; if you do, you will be blocked. What you can do is propose edits on the talk page and try to get a consensus from established and neutral editors: I do not accept that, despite your claims about the material being pertinent, you are independent enough from that subject to make such a judgment. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Paid editing?
[edit]Hello Jeanninegrimm. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, 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:Jeanninegrimm. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Jeanninegrimm|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Theroadislong (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
RESPONSE (Sorry, not sure how to put a separate response on these Talk pages): No, I am not, nor have I ever been paid to do any edits. I just enjoy researching these additions to articles that seem incomplete. I understood that Wikipedia was user edited just for the reason that it allowed the articles to be broader in scope. Dr. Resseguie was my instructor in seminary and I got to be his teaching/research assistant when I was a student (20 years ago), also an unpaid position! I have followed his work closely in the last 10 or so years since he has been retired. I thought I was doing a favor to him to update his bibliography as he published things. Being familiar with his work, I have used it in sermon prep regularly and have added edits to Wiki articles where I thought his narrative insights would be beneficial. I myself have been retired and just doing supply ministry for the last 6 years, so I don't even have an employer to disclose. Just me! I got some warnings a while back and after that, I tried to always site other sources as well as Dr. Resseguie. I'm not sure why the entire edits were removed---could it just be that his citations are removed and the actual edits remain??? Jeanninegrimm (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- You have a conflict of interest. For any future edits involving Resseguie, please see Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request. Theroadislong (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't really matter whether you are getting paid or not; a conflict of interest is a conflict of interest. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
RESPONSE: Thanks. I just reviewed the COI page and I guess "related to" means that you have an academic "connection with"? I'm really disheartened because I made every effort to do objective edits with solid citations. I don't want to break the rules so will stick with editing using other sources from now on. Then there can't be any suspicion of conflict. Is that correct?
- If your other sources are not a conflict of interest, then yes, that is correct.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |