User talk:Justiciero1811

Hi Justiciero1811! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host ) talk) 01:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

Hello, Justiciero1811, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard
  if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Justiciero1811. Wikipedia must be kept neutral to any personal point of view. Your edits are in breach of the Wikipedia Guidelines and I have removed your edits. I have taken a look at the article's history and I have reported you to Wikipedia's Head Office as Wikipedia's administrators seem to not care about your edits. I have requested an audit into your behavior with hopes that swift action is taken against you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arctic M (talk • contribs) 11:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm FinanceReferee. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you added some content to a Wikipedia article that appears to be a

Your continuing edits and reversions to this article do not meet Wikipedia Standards. Your continuing reversion of changes to make sure your own POV is the only one offered is a violation of both undue weight and NPOV. Please stop editing this page in such a way that your POV is the only one available to readers.FinanceReferee (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FinanceReferee, I am working to follow Wikipedia guidlines. The

Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia's fonder, saying "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." With this in mind, I am presenting the facts from various reports, and not trying to push any POV of my own. This means that if a statment is disputable, then Reliable Sources disputing the statment should be involved. Unfortunately, for example, a member's Linkedin page would be a self-published source and not prominent enough to suggest that a Reliable Source is wrong. Justiciero1811 (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Justiciero1811;
Would you please get in contact with me? You can email me at philippewikimedia.org. I am the Director, Community Advocacy for the Wikimedia Foundation. I have a matter of importance that I urgently need to discuss with you. Thank you! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading about all the lawsuits Derwick has been filing, I'm a little hesitant to give out my email address or personal information :( can you tell me what the issue is on my talk page?

Sorry to be so clandestine. Justiciero1811 (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly understand your hesitation. I can tell you that it's definitely related to something you need to know about. Perhaps you could use a one-time "throw-away" email address? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that should work. Just out of curiosity, is there a reason why you cannot tell me what this is all about on my talk page? I do not want other users to think that I am skirting protocol. Can I request that we have this conversation out in the open? Justiciero1811 (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tell you what - would you be willing to have the conversation confidentially first, and then - at your own discretion - you can determine whether to make appropriate points public? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise your relationship, if any, with Derwick Associates. Rich Farmbrough, 02:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: I have raised this issue at

WP:AN/I. Rich Farmbrough, 03:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC).[reply

]

I answered. Of course you can copy it :) —

²¹ 21:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Derwick Associates is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derwick Associates until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. jcgoble3 (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HI Justiciero1811. In regard to Derwick Associates, hopefully the request you placed at the dispute resolution noticeboard will play out well and solve the issues. If not, I was thinking of raising it at the

That's a good idea. Thank you for the suggestion :) Hopefully everything can get worked out on the DR/N Justiciero1811 (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, I suspect that the apparent ongoing COI issues are serious enough that this will probably have to go back to AN/I or the COI noticeboard to have it worked out, whatever eventuates, but maybe the dispute resolution will go well. I'm glad it has been opened. Engaging in discussion is the best way forward, especially if there are still COI concerns. - Bilby (talk) 03:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justiciero! I noticed you've made some edits to Derwick Associates in the past and I recently made some changes to the page, along with related pages, myself to try and improve it. I wanted to invite you to take a look at the current version and see what you think. Righteousskills (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]