User talk:Justgivethetruth

Welcome!

Hello, Justgivethetruth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! – Fayenatic London 15:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm Fayenatic london. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Institute of Financial Accountants without 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; I restored the removed content. 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! – Fayenatic London 15:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Institute of Financial Accountants, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. – Fayenatic London 19:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justgivethetruth, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Justgivethetruth! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In practice

Hi, you seem to be ignoring all the hints about mis-spelling the noun "practice".

If you cannot cite a reliable source for any statement, you should not add it. It's fine to make a WP:BOLD edit, but if another editor reverts it, the next step is not to revert it again but to discuss; see WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.

Otherwise, you are in danger of getting into an edit war, and you would be blocked if you were to revert three times in one day (see WP:3RR). – Fayenatic London 15:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Justgivethetruth. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Justgivethetruth. I work on conflict of interest issues in Wikipedia. You disclosed here that you have a professional relationship with Institute of Financial Accountants. As an accountant I am sure you are familiar with the concept of COI. It matters in Wikipedia too. You have been provided with our formal notice above.

Wikipedia is a widely used reference work, and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it.

Briefly, conflict of interest is managed in Wikipedia in two steps: disclosure of the conflict, and offering edits on the Talk page for others to review instead of directly editing the article.

Disclosure: You have already kind of disclosed the relationship in that edit note, so the first part is somewhat done. But would you please disclose the relationship (not your personal identity, unless you choose) on your Userpage here: ~~Justgivethetruth~~ user:Justgivethetruth?

Peer review: Going forward, would you please do not edit the article directly, but rather offer suggestions at the article's Talk page? The purpose of this, is so that independent editors can review your changes for NPOV and sourcing, and thus protect the integrity of Wikipedia. You can do that easily - and provide notice to the community of your request - by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline. I made that easy for you by adding a section to the beige box at the top of the Talk page - there is a link at "click here" in that section -- if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request. Thanks.

You may also want to read Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms and Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia.

You can reply here, on this page, if you have any questions or want to discuss anything. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Justgivethetruth

Hi. I saw that you made an article about yourself. At first I thought this was intentional spam but then I realised that you probably wanted to make a user page not an article so I untagged it as spam and moved it to User:Justgivethetruth. I see now that you probably followed the link in the message above. Unfortunately that goes to the wrong place so I can see how the mistake arose. Anyway, no harm done. Now that you have a user page you can use that to provide a little information about yourself as a Wikipedia editor but you should not use it for advertising or self-promotion. You should take care as it could currently be construed in that way although I now see that you were trying to address the disclosure issue above. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

my apologies for giving the wrong link. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects

Hi, thank you for the info you gave about yourself on my talk page. You may be interested to collaborate with other editors on one or more of these WikiProjects:

WP:WikiProject Christianity

WP:WikiProject Bible

WP:WikiProject Business/Accounting task force

– Fayenatic London 14:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Signing off on messages

Hi Justgivethetruth, Please remember to sign all your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will help identify you as it will automatically insert your username and the date. Thanks. Audit Guy (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have yet to edit the article talk page or this talk page. Suggests an unwillingness to listen. You brought a discussion about an article to my talk page, I asked you not to, and yet you did so again. I think if you don't take the time to learn our policies, you will soon find yourself blocked, as you keep violating them. But this has all been explained to you before, twice, e.g. here. Why are you not getting it? What part of "Writing from personal experience is considered "original research" and is not acceptable on Wikipedia, see WP:NOR." do you not understand, Ray? What part of "If this judgment was appealed and reversed, please provide a link for a report on the matter." and "It is not Wikipedia but the IFA's conduct that brought it into disrepute." do you not understand, Ray? Elvey^(t•c) 22:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User_talk:Elvey#Institute_of_Financial_Accountants_Wiki_entry, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. What part of "take it to the article talk page" do you not understand? AGAIN, STOP discussing content on my talk page. Elvey^(t•c) 06:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]