User talk:Jeffroorda

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Jeffroorda, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jeffroorda. 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, 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. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017[edit]

Hi Jeff, at this point it would be appropriate for me to post a level three warning to you: your edit history has been to add content you find favorable to your biography--much promotional content was removed by other editors--and delete that which you don't like. Please read the encyclopedia's guidelines, and request changes on the article's talk page. Thank you. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I was in no way trying to be overly persistent or disruptive in the edits I was attempting to make. Much of the accurate, sourced biographical information on the Wiki page "Jeff Roorda" had been removed and replaced with inaccurate, unsourced or poorly sourced editorial commentary. I was attempting to restore the accuracy of the page and thought that I was doing something wrong when attempting to save the restored content. It wasn't until I found my way to this talk page that I realized that it was the administrator removing the content rather than a problem with the way I was saving it. I'm glad to abide by Wiki rules but I also think Wiki needs to abide by its own rules about libelous statements and accuracy of biographies of living persons. Tell me how to do that without violating your rules and I'm happy to comply. Jeffroorda (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I agree, accurate, sourced biographical information has been replaced by unsourced or poorly sourced content. By you. While there were some problems with the article, most of your edits did not involve fixing inaccurate or libelous content. It's strongly suggested that article subjects do not write about themselves but propse changes on the article's talk page and leave it to uninvolved editors to decide whether they would improve the article. Huon (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.