User talk:Jeanette Estrem
Welcome[edit]
|
October 2019[edit]
Hello, I'm Wallyfromdilbert. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Terminator Genisys. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. 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. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Your help desk question[edit]
I need to Move (change the name) of this article from Paramount Home Media Distribution (which is no longer the name of the Division of in Paramount Pictures). The correct name for this Division is Paramount Home Entertainment. I attempted to Move the article name yesterday but got (an erroneous) error message stating that title already exists in Wikipedia. Paramount Home Entertainment does not (yet) exist. Proof? Here is our new facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/ParamountMovies/
Thank you, Jeanette Estrem (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Jeanette Estrem
Managing a conflict of interest[edit]
Hello, Jeanette Estrem. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Paramount Home Media Distribution, 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. I've noticed your editing history, and I wanted to make sure you are able to properly disclose any conflict of interest or paid editing. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Repeated Undo edits by AdhiOK[edit]
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Someone named AdhiOK has repeatedly undone my edits to the page Paramount Home Media Distribution (that no longer exists) and offers no explanation for this action. My edits are facts about the division I work in. I'm simply trying to remove outdated and incorrect information about Paramount Home Entertainment. Isn't the purpose of wikipedia to have ACCURATE information? AdhiOK seems to want inaccurate information in wikipedia.
Jeanette Estrem (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- There is a problem on both sides. AdhiOK should be providing reasons for reverting your edits. That is bad on their part. And bad on your part is that you have been making changes out of your own knowledge on a page where you have a conflict of interest. All edits are expected to be supported by citing published sources, preferably independent sources, and COI editors are expected to make {{edit request}}s rather than make changes directly to the page where they have a conflict.
- Yes Wikipedia desires to have accurate information but long experience has taught us that we can only accept information that has been published elsewhere by reliable sources. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm new to wikipedia so I'm learning editing. I'll learn how to request the edit. I'd like to point out that before my correcting wrong information in the HISTORY section, wikipedia editors allowed someoneELSE to post 8 full paragraphs of "information" using only one single source. I researched that one source (wikipedia allowed) and it did NOT support the 8 paragraphs before it. I feel my edits (from AdhiOK especially) are being more scrutinized unfairly. That said, I do thank you for your guidance here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.110.121.110 (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- There is no overarching authority that allows or approves changes. All such policing must be done by other editors. If you find material that has been added without proper references, you may remove it (with an edit summary explaining why) or add a maintenance template such as the famous {{citation needed}}. And there are lots of people with good or bad intentions adding improper content all the time, which is one reason we warn people that Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable source. Much of the time, the improper content is removed promptly, but it sometimes is not discovered for years.
- Oh, one more thing. Try very hard to not edit if you are not logged in. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 00:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
AdhiOK undid my edits for a 5th time (see below summary). This person quotes a reason this time (see below) BUT this explanation DOES NOT support their deleting ALL of my edits in the paragraph. And, they site supposed contractual agreements between Universal & Dreamworks that are simply NOT true (current) and lists NO reference for their information. So this person can continue to delete my FACTUAL information with any explanation? They undid my entire paragraph instead of the one sentence about Dreamworks. This is harassment, clearly. ADhiOK, you are misinformed.
ADhiOK's curprev 04:38, 22 January 2020 AdhiOK talk contribs 10,760 bytes -708 Undid revision 936926700 by Jeanette Estrem (talk) Since Universal Pictures own the entire to the DreamWorks Animation library, all of this was re-released under Universal Pictures Home Entertainment in 2018 plus in 2013, DWA itself reacquiring the distribution rights to the pre-2013 of its library from Paramount......
Jeanette Estrem (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Jeanette EstremJeanette Estrem (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Why are you making direct edits to a page when you have a conflict of interest and are a paid editor? As others have stated to you, you should be suggesting changes on the talk page with the proposed text and sourcing there. You also should read about what makes a reliable source because your edits are not properly supported. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi - I've done that. I made 3 requested edits. Do you not see those? All of my suggested edits are supported fully as required. I should note that the explanation form AdhiOK for deleting my edits are NOT supported at all. They are contesting contractual agreements supposed by Universal Studios. I suspect that AdhiOK works for Universal Studios but has not self identified as such.
I've read the note by Jmcgnh regarding my suggested edit. How do I message you directly or respond to your note about why you are rejecting my suggested edit? Here is your note (copied)
"The url you give as a reference is just the top-level website address for ViacomCBS. It does not directly support anything you've said in your proposed text. We'd prefer to see an independent press report about this merger and its effects on various chunks of intellectual property. [[user:jmcgnh|"
I need to explain to you the fundamentals of studio operations. ALL Studios. The Home Entertainment division handles the intellectual property of whatever brands represented by the studio. Therefore, all of the brands listed on the ViacomCBS.com are handled by the Paramount Home Entertainment. [1]
Also, I'd like to have you review the Warner Brothers Studio article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Home_Video as an example. Their History section rolls through more than 3 paragraphs using a SINGLE source. THAT source does not support the previous 3+ paragraphs.
Is there a reason I'm being overly scrutinized here? I believe that I'm being unfairly singled out and will share this experience with others.
Jeanette Estrem (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Jeanette EstremJeanette Estrem (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
March 2020[edit]
Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Pet Sematary (1989 film), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)