Jeanne boleyn (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
[[User:GDD1000|GDD1000]] ([[User talk:GDD1000#top|talk]]) 16:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC) |
[[User:GDD1000|GDD1000]] ([[User talk:GDD1000#top|talk]]) 16:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Apology accepted. I have read the article on the UDR and it's a bit too controversial for me to comment on. Anyway,[[User:Jeanne boleyn|jeanne]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 16:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)I wouldn't dare remove anyone's comments from another's talk pages. Cheers. |
::Apology accepted. I have read the article on the UDR and it's a bit too controversial for me to comment on. Anyway,[[User:Jeanne boleyn|jeanne]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 16:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)I wouldn't dare remove anyone's comments from another's talk pages. Cheers. |
||
Because it's so controversial perhaps you wouldn't mind giving an opinion on the discussion page? I am sorry for the previous incenvenience. |
|||
[[User:GDD1000|GDD1000]] ([[User talk:GDD1000#top|talk]]) 17:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:47, 27 April 2008
April 2008
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. One Night In Hackney303 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. One Night In Hackney303 16:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ulster Defence Regiment
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
- and you must always:
- avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. One Night In Hackney303 23:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This applies both ways. The article must be seen to be neutral and that is my point.
--GDD1000 (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Welcome
|
Original research warning
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. One Night In Hackney303 18:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles . Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. As you did in this edit One Night In Hackney303 18:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. As you did yet again in this edit. One Night In Hackney303 18:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. One Night In Hackney303 18:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
About that Ulster article
Hi GDD1000, I'd like to offer you some advice for your difficulties on the Ulster Defence Regiment page. First of all, Wikipedia does not allow original research in articles, including claims that go above and beyond the content of the cited sources. Second, if you find yourself in an editing dispute, you should not unilaterally post new edits in the article itself. Reverting those edits does not constitute vandalism, and users should not receive warnings from you to that effect. It is important to remember that you do not own the article, and other editors have as much a right to change your edits as you. When attempting to make a case for an article change on the corresponding talk page, do not make personal attacks on other editors, including accusations of partisanship. Comment on content, not the contributor, as they say. I hope that you all manage to calmly and fairly work out your differences on the article talk page, so that no blocks are needed in this case - for repeated insertion of original research, personal attacks, or violating the three revert rule. Thank you. ~Eliz81(C) 19:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you indeed for your comments Eliz81. As you may have (correctly) surmised, I am a new Wikipedia user and as such am now in a steep learning curve. Fortunately I seem to be slowly getting the grasp of the necessary etiquette and was able to draw in a third party editor (SilkTork) to assist in the rewriting of the article. I would be grateful for your further comments if you have any further assistance to offer.
GDD1000 (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I wish you well on the article. Be aware you may have problems at any point in future. Be bold in editing, but be slow, polite and careful in responding to what other's do. If someone reverts what you have done, and you don't know why, talk to them - and talk to them in a neutral manner. There may be a good reason for their action, and if there is not, you can often explain to them why your way is better. If you talk to them in an aggressive way, they will usually respond badly, and matters will take longer to get settled. If you make no progress with civil negotiation, then call on me for assistance. Or, if I'm not available, ask for a Third Opinion.
Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience | ||
For learning patience in the editing of Ulster Defence Regiment SilkTork *YES! 22:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
Somebody gave me this award once - I think you have earned it for learning to be patient during what must have been a stressful time for you in the editing of that article. You seem to be a resourceful chap with your successful music agency - I hope you'll apply some more time to the editing of articles here on Wikipedia. Regards SilkTork *YES! 22:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You're very kind and (if I may) also very astute. Checking out my domain name was something I probably wouldn't have thought of, but you're right - it does immediately let the reader know I have a pedigree in business.
GDD1000 (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Response to your message
...is on my talk page. One Night In Hackney303 13:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Please have a read of WP:3RR which you are close to breaking, if you have not done so already. And stop edit warring you can not pick who you feel a neutral 3rd party editor is. BigDunc (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
If you have read the discussion page at Ulster Defence Regiment you will see that a productive and agreeable discussion was going on under the guidance of SilkTork. It is not helpful if you, and others, try to bully me into submission on the matter. I will not quietly acquiesce on the matter. The information which is being deleted is verifiably referenced and relevant. I have no idea why you and others are so determined to have it removed. SilkTork has been requested to look in again and in the meantim I would ask you and others to cease the edit war. The discussion page is there for resolving such issues.
GDD1000 (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You, in concert with others, have also breached the rule.
GDD1000 (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
What deletions?
Excuse me, but I have never deleted your comments to other users on the UDR talk page. As a matter of fact,I haven't even read the article on the UDR!!!jeanne (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The comments were deleted from BigDunc's page. I am trying to stop an edit war here.
GDD1000 (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- You should get your facts right Jeanne boleyn removed nothing and you do not prevent an edit war by reverting 4 times in a matter of hours. BigDunc (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The history showed she had removed the comment. I have no wish to be in an edit war with anyone however you and others are continually removing content from the Ulster Defence Regiment page which is NOT original research and is backed up by a link to the Northern Ireland Assembly website. This content has been reviewed by a third party editor who is neutral to the subject matter. The entire concept of the recent edits by SilkTork has been to balance the article and ensure it is not partisan. Despite holding what could be conceived as a conflict of interest on the subject the material I am retaining and you are removing is in support of the "Allegations of Collusion" which is deemed contrary to my interest.
If you wish to discuss this content and find a way to move forward I am delighted to discuss it in a frank and open manner in order to resolve the issue however I have requested that SilkTork enter the discussion again to balance it and I respectfully request that you refrain from deleting the information again until we have his opinion. I have made this request to other parties too as you will see from the page history.
GDD1000 (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hold on a minute GDD1000, you are clearly accusing me of something I did not do. I HAVE NEVER DELETED YOUR COMMENTS ON THE UDR ON BIGDUNCS TALK PAGES.OK? The last time I texted BigDunc's talk page was to discuss an American glam punk band. How Max Lazer has anything to do with the UDR, I'll leave you to explain.I just read for the FIRST time the article and the talk pages of the UDR.Listen,I wouldn't enter a discussion of that sort-much less dare to remove anyone's comments without wearing at least a suit of armour.Have I made myself clear? jeanne (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks like I may have made a genuine error. You have my most sincere apologies.
GDD1000 (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Because it's so controversial perhaps you wouldn't mind giving an opinion on the discussion page? I am sorry for the previous incenvenience.