User talk:JTalong

Hello, JTalong. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page John Ortell Kingston, 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, clients, 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 Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a conflict of interest regarding these pages, nor am I being paid to edit them. I have heavily researched these topics for years. Any content I've added was supported by a reliable source and any content I've removed either had no citation or was not supported by the given source. I'd be happy to talk about specific changes you are unhappy with but note that any changes I've made have complied with Wikipedia's Editing Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy JTalong (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the page you mentioned, John Ortell Kingston, I removed several unsourced statements and opinions. The only sourced statement I did remove was sourced by Southern Poverty Law Center. You yourself have stated that you "don't currently use Southern Poverty Law Center as a source" and that "consensus is that its not a high quality source." Horse Eye's Back

I'm open for discussion on any specific edits which you feel should be different. JTalong (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COI with the latter day church of christ?[edit]

Hello, JTalong. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} 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 Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
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. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated before, I do not have a conflict of interest regarding these pages, but I am relying on many hours of research on these topics. I'm not interested in a Wiki-battle with you @Big Money Threepwood

On your first edit, the Deseret News article sources from August 25, 1998 specifically states in paragraph 14 and 17 referring to the "allegations" and the "alleged relationship." <Direct quotes from the article>

No matter how unsavory we may feel an individual might be or how credible we feel an allegation to be, Wikipedia is a restatement of reliable sources. Since I felt Deseret News to a reasonably reliable and long standing historical news outlet, and it is easily demonstrable that the source contradicts your edit comments, I reverted your original edit. JTalong (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are in an edit war, and should take it to the talk page. Reverting to preserve your whitewashed version is edit warring. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are in the talk page @Big Money Threepwood, instead of me just re-reverting your edits. I still feel both reverts were justified for the reasons I've stated here.

Please address the issues raised and stick to the facts of the sources. JTalong (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article talk page. Its your user talk page. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of your edits seems to target an individual in the group, while the other seems like you're trying to protect the group by removing information entirely. Going off of personal knowledge is not a useable source for Wikipedia.

I have not discriminated which wording to preserve. JTalong (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your second edit removes an entire post along with the source. Unless we feel Los Angeles Magazine, or the author Michelle Mcphee are not reliable sources, or the information is not relevant, we would typically revise the posting rather than remove it entirely.

Since I wasn't the original poster of the comment, I took the liberty to read the article thoroughly to try to understand your edit comments. The sub-headline, as well as paragraphs 1, 3, 5 and others seem to support the original posters comments.

Please advise as to why this post is "disingenuous" or your logic behind removing the LA Magazine source. @Big Money Threepwood JTalong (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]