User talk:Joewendt

Welcome!

Hello, Joewendt, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joewendt, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Joewendt! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few editing essays/guidelines/rules articles you should check out

Joe: I realize that you're editing account here is fairly new. Based on some of your recent edits, I'm going to recommend that you check out these pieces before editing further:

Help:Edit summary explains why you should always include an edit summary to explain the reason for your edit.
WP:BRD explains the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle of editing - basically, that if you boldly do an edit and someone undoes it, you don't just go and make the same edit again. That leads toward edit warring.
WP:COI is our guideline on editing when you have a conflict of interest. You may wish to review that guideline, see if you have a conflict of interest on some of the material you've been editing, and if so, address your edits appropriately.

I hope these help!

--Nat Gertler (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My personal talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss editing of the article. If you go to Talk:Rocky De La Fuente, you will find the extant discussion where consensus was achieved. You should not change that material until you further the discussion and achieve a new consensus in support of your planned content. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here}^{What I've Done} 13:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Joewendt. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Rocky De La Fuente, 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 WP:Spam);
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. JesseRafe (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for my earlier email; I had missed that you made this disclosure here. Having done that, I can now speak publicly. You are an announced candidate for the office of president, and thus have a strong conflict of interest on any articles dealing with the 2020 presidential elections and the candidates therein. You are an officer in the Reform Party, and thus have a conflict of interest on any article regarding the Reform Party. Your conflicts are strong and need to be noted, no matter how fair and even-handed you may think you're being. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interests can only occur after nominations are finalized and candidates obtain ballot access. Furthermore, based on the logic given, then only registered Democrayt can edit the Republican Party page, which is by definition a conflict of interest as they have an incentive to negatively portray the group. Furthermore, at least one editor has demonstrated a negative bias toward one candidate, to the point of arbitrarily deleting his section for the 2016 US Presidential election page and justifying said action with a criteria that is contrary to the consensus that allowed said candidate to be listed, and said editorshould therefore also be prohibited for editing anything regarding the elections --Joewendt (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Your recent edits to User talk:Joewendt could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. JesseRafe (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see any action against the individual who is accusing me of a conflict of interest nor have I received an apology. Good day

Your recent editing history at 2016 United States presidential election shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Muboshgu I am not engaged in an edit war, rather I am correcting an effort by some who wish to retroactively implement an unfair standard. The content in question was intially removed due to an arbitrary decision by an editor who decided to reinterpret what qualifies as a major third party candidate, when no consensus was discussed in the edit talk forthe 2016 United States Presidential election page. Additionally, the editor in question claims I have a bias, even though the edits I made were to tidy the section. In other words, I am not in an edit war, others are. User:Joewendt (talk)

Administrators' noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of indefinite duration for legal threats. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. User:Ymblanter (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Legal threats--Ymblanter (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be unblocked please make a clear statement that you retract the legal threat you made earlier (and then removed from the page).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joewendt, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

JesseRafe (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joewendt. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]