User talk:Jhafke

May 2018

Hello, I'm Citizen Canine. I noticed that you recently removed content from Kendra Lust 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, particularly when removing sourced content. 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. Citizen Canine (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Jhafke. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Kendra Lust, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI 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, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with 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).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Clearly, as an attorney representing her, your edits are in violation of our terms of use. See WP:PAID and use WP:OTRS. You have no business editing the article in question. John from Idegon (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done, working on this issue with many areas of the internet. Jhafke (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jhafke, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Jhafke! 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 experienced editors like Mz7 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Kendra Lust. Stop editing her article. Neither you nor her get to dictate the content of her biography here. Your conduct is in direct violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. John from Idegon (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PAID for guidance on how to proceed. John from Idegon (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My relationship to the edit has been disclosed, all facts needs to be verifiable which the removed item can not be. Unsure why using information based on un-verifiable information is allowed. Can this be explained? Attorney for Kendra Lust Jhafke (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PAID, you are not allowed to edit the article. This has been explained to you before. Make edit requests on the talk page. The subject of the article has no control over the content of the article. Next instance of you editing this article will result in a request to have your account blocked. You don't make the rules here, and you are required to follow them. John from Idegon (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PAID, my relationship and whom I work from has been disclosed many times. I am not making the rules, nor do I have a desire to do anything besides have non-verifiable information removed. Please provide why this non-verifiable information keeps being placed back? Or what Talk page I am to ask this question to have this information removed, no idea why this is such a complex matter given the most important part of Wikipedia is facts used must be supported by verifiable information. Attorney for Kendra Lust Jhafke

It's properly sourced. The given name of a person who uses a psudonym is encyclopedic content. Suggest you find another tree to bark up. John from Idegon (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer back, however in reviewing the "properly sourced" information no one can find the provided information. Having verifiable information is very bases of Wikipedia, so why is this being ignored over an desire to spread facts based on speculation. Attorney for Kendra Lust Jhafke