User talk:IThinkFinancialWB

Welcome!

Hi IThinkFinancialWB! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Kj cheetham (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kj cheetham thank you so much for warm Welcome!!! iThinkFinancialWB

February 2022

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Natalie Edwards, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Completely irrelevant materials added UNITE TOGETHER, STRIVE FOR SURVIVAL! 05:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

UNITE TOGETHER, I did not post irrelevant material. I am the topic of the page and I cited all material. I am accurately reflecting the information on the page and documenting the following sections (1 Background, 1.1 Early Life, 1.2 Education, 1.3 Career, 2 Whistleblower, 2.1 Internal Channels, 2.2 Public Disclosures, 2.3. Reactions, 3 Conviction, 3.1 Sentencing, 3.2 COVID @ FPC Alderson, 4 Pardon, 4.1 Memorandum on Establishing the Fight Against Corruption as a Core United States National Security Interest, 4.2 Anti-Money Laundering Act, 4.3 Corporate Transparency Act, 5 Global Effect, 5.1 FinCEN Files, 5.2 Panama Papers, Pandora Papers, 6 See Also, 7 References, 8 External Links); but, individuals keep deleting what I am creating for the public to view. It is not vandalism it is knowledge.

Hi, just to clarify, are you Natalie Edwards? -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I am, thank you for confirming and I am pulling from sourced material. - -iThinkFinancialWB

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, IThinkFinancialWB. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Natalie Edwards, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IThinkFinancialWB To note, you clearly have a COI, so I recommend avoiding editing the article and only proposing changes on the talk page. As this is an encyclopedia (as per WP:NOT), it needs to be neutral, and not merely copy text from other sources. Articles need to be written in editors own words. There is also a Manual of Style to follow. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kj cheetham The article was clearly already a COI, inaccurate, and politically driven which violated Wikipedia Standards but no Wikipedian cared about the misleading inaccurate information until the factual sourced information was being posted. I am still editing the material as noted by the timestamps. Not every average person is a Wikipedia expert. Thank for you providing the links to assist. (talk) 10 February 2022

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello IThinkFinancialWB! Your additions to Natalie Edwards have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have also removed a very large amount of unsourced/lightly sourced content you recently added. Unsourced passionately worded content is not what Wikipedia is looking for. Editing your own article is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required encyclopedic neutral point of view. Please make editing suggestions (along with reliable sources) on the talk page rather than editing the article directly.— Diannaa (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa Why would you remove a large amount of the sourced/highly sourced (48 sourced content, compared to non-sourced other Wikipedia sites). The Life and Career were directly from the Court Transcripts as the Individual is High Profile Case. Since Wikipedia had NO problem creating the page when the case first started and having other individuals drive the narrative from 2017-2020 then it is assumed Wikipedia will have no problem allowing the public drive the true narrative of this person's life. Obviously, this is NOT true as indicated by deletion of 48 diverse cross global MSM sourced citation and court documentation as well as United State Congressional documentation and White House Memorandums. It is clear Wikipedia prefers false news. I respresnt myself honestly and am punished for it by Wikipedia now that seems to go against Wikipedia's own standards. iThinkFinancialWB (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2022 (EST)

The content I initially removed (at 14:06, February 9) was taken out because it was copied from other websites, in violation of our copyright policy. The websites where I found the matching content were:

The vast majority of the content I removed in this edit had no citations whatsoever. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more information on why everything we add to Wikipedia needs a citation to a reliable source.

Opinions were added in Wikipedia's voice, which fails our policy that our articles should have a neutral point of view. This especially is evident in the essay-like section at the end but there's such material throughout. Passages such as "The question, of course, arises why someone with such an exemplary background – a history of personal and professional accomplishment, a demonstrated record of helping others, a deeply ingrained morality – stands before this Court to be sentenced for having committed a serious federal offense" present the material from a particular point of view. That's a violation of our policy that calls for a Neutral point of view.
Unencyclopedic, tabloid-like choice of language (some examples: "a mind-numbing level of money laundering"; "Edwards extraordinary history of accomplishment, public service, volunteerism, whistleblowing, the unusual factors surrounding the offense conduct, and a patriot’s willingness to bring to light a global corruption resolution"; "Our reporting shows that despite the tough talk that often accompanies them, these deferred prosecution agreements are toothless"; "Biden Administration Declares Fight Against Corruption as a Core United States National Security Interest yet jails the whistleblower"— Diannaa (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa The original image of Natalie Edwards was copied from other websites, in violation of Wikipedia copyright policy but it was never flagged or removed. It was the image of her mugshot or was that because it painted a bias image of her? Now, the more updated image also pulled from the public domain is being marked as a violation unlike the original one. The content you have removed depicted a more universal standard with citations from the public domain in accordance with Wikipedia standards, yet you have stated it was in violation. The page I edited was cited from heavy.com which is tabloid site. I replaced the former information with citations from New York Times, Washinton Post, CNN, Fox News, BBC, to name a few behind each sentence. You have chosen a few words out a plethora of information that was pulled from over 48 citations and 100 linked Wikipedia pages. The language was modeled off of numerous Wikipedia pages I have read and used as models. I dare not share which ones as they may be marked for deletion.