User talk:P747AH

Insurance[edit]

I have no objection to listing complaints about Prudential and AFLAC. I've never edited those articles, but they should be as neutral as other articles. I don't find state agency reports and BBS listings to be very informative, but I suppose the guy who added it does. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should ask the editor who added the material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Primerica logo.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Primerica logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Primerica logo.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Primerica logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primerica history[edit]

On the note of keeping the history of the Primerica article short and relevant, I still think it's significant to restore the "origin of Primerica name" subsection because it deals with the origination of the company's name and how it went from the can producing industry into financial services, a crucial turn for the company's future, after which it bought AL Williams and inherited its MLM model. I was thinking of putting it into the Art Williams article but it has no place there since AL Williams existed before Primerica. Your thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timberlax (talk • contribs) 03:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Primerica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Annuity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Primerica. DMacks (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit when you have a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, P747AH. 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 COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies.

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. DMacks (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

P747AH (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been accused of COI, but doing research and editing on one article does not constitute COI. I have been doing so for more that 10 years. Additionally, my indefinite block also should not include blocking from Talk pages, which I have also, on good faith, tried to resolve edit disagreements.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: no response to the concerns voiced below. Max Semenik (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It is not possible to exempt pages(other than this one) from a block. You are going to need to explain your relationship to the company that from what I can tell is the subject that most if not all of your edits have been about. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that your original username was Primerica, you have pretty much only edited the Primerica article, and you have argued excessively to keep criticism out of the article, I can't imagine it will be easy to convince a reviewing admin that you have no conflict of interest with regard to the article.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]