User talk:Relief03082011

March 2011

Mr. Jett:

Your additions are not encyclopedic. Please cease re-adding them. Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself or the cases you've won. Consider this a final warning to stop creating sockpuppets. Your additions will continue to be reverted, as they do not belong in an encyclopedia. Take your promotional efforts elsewhere. They do not belong here. --Manway (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Comix03072011 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Manway (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at Joseph Jett, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Manway (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Manway,

I notice from all the comments that anyone posting a favorable article must be Mr. Jett. Please do not be juvenile.

I filed a complaint with the biography of living persons as to our edits. We fleshed out the Jett article from properly referenced major newspapers and magazines after a black history month look at black pioneers on Wall Street. I do not understand your beef.

The article championed the SEC without noting that the SEC has a 94% conviction ratio. Is that not pertinent information? We sourced the SEC report so how can there be criticism of that.

Jett's color certainly played a roll in this affair. We cited from major newspaper articles about the impact of race. You say that this is not scholarly?

We added that GE own NBC and did a story on Law & Order based on Jett. AGain what is your issue with this? We used IMDB as the source. The media power of GE certainly played a role in the Jett case. How is this not a pertinent addition?

You should not have the right to remove anything that does not support your particular bias. We certainly did not. We did talk to the SEC. They knew nothing of a 2009 SEC investigation, but did send us to their website for the conviction ratio table. Since the 2009 SEC investigation had no reference cited and the SEC knew nothing we removed it. How is this not scholarly?

Hello. Uninvolved person here. Saw this discussion on the BLP board. You can't add original research to an article, so saying that you called the SEC is not helping your position, even if true. As far as the other stuff, as long as the article restates the information as presented in the sources...then it's fine. But any kind of interpretation on your part is considered synthesis. Again, a no-no. Hope this helps. --Quinn ^☂THUNDER 21:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]