User talk:Jdarsie11
Jdarsie11, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
[edit]
|
Hi Jdarsie11!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi |
March 2017
[edit]
Hello, I'm 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63. I noticed that you recently removed some content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, you've had a major interest in the article Anthony Scaramucci, first adding content and now deleting passages that are well sourced. If you continue to do so I'll request administrative assistance. It also looks like WP:COI may be an issue here; if so, association with the subject must be divulged. Thank you, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- I am removing content because it is erroneous. The OGE publicly denied reviewing Scaramucci's finances. https://www.snl.com/interactivex/article.aspx?id=39294845&Printable=1&KPLT=7
Also, the author if the New York Magazine piece in question was fired from Bloomberg for publishing fake hoax news and her account is not credible. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/19/bloomberg-jessica-pressler_n_6348348.html
- The OGE statement you appear to be referring to was simply A spokesman for the ethics office, however, denied that clearance from the office was necessary before making White House appointments. This isn't a denial that the finances were reviewed, just a statement that OGE clearance wasn't necessary. Rather than removing the entire passage, that explanation can be added. As for the magazine reporter, her problems from 2014 do not automatically invalidate everything she's written since. There are, incidentally, multiple sources for this, and they take precedence over your unilateral removal of content. You may start a discussion on the article talk page. Again, if WP:COI is an issue, that must be divulged. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Now why was most of the Philanthropy section removed? All of it was well-sourced. Jdarsie11 (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- No it wasn't. See WP:PRIMARY, and read the edit summary. I wonder if you are familiar with the policy for biographies of living people--please read WP:BLP. And like the IP editor above, I can't help but wonder whether your interest in this article extends to the subject of the article, and thus whether you have a conflict of interest. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- I do not see any BLP problems in the content you've been removing; whether some review is or is not required has no bearing on this matter. You may take your issues to the talk page, or to WP:BLPN, a noticeboard. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
File:AnthonyScaramucci.jpg listed for discussion
[edit]A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AnthonyScaramucci.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. January (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
