User talk:AlecCollie

Welcome!
Hello, AlecCollie, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Chapel Cleeve Manor, have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia: I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! &mdash; Rod talk 14:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and how to develop articles
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * Article wizard for creating new articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Chapel Cleeve Manor
Hi, Thanks for your note about Chapel Cleeve Manor. Can you say which information is "personal and not for public record"? Just about all the information is sourced from information in the public domain (from reliable sources) and therefore whether the current owner wants it removed from the wikipedia article or not is not really relevant as the information is already accessible from other sources. I can't imagine the article being deleted. I would suggest putting a note on the talk page of the article where others can join in the discussion. An article can be nominated for deletion (see Introduction to deletion process) but I don't think any of the criteria there can be applied to the Chapel Cleeve Manor article. For further information see Contact us - Subjects or you (or the current owner) could try the Help desk.&mdash; Rod talk 08:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Further to your comment on my talk page.. Many buildings (particularly listed buildings) have articles on wikipedia and information about them is drawn from many sources to create their wikipedia articles. These articles are occasionally written by the owners (although care is needed with possible Conflict of interest) but frequently by others who may be interested in history, architecture etc. I do not see any text within the article suggesting that the owner is "broke". The article says "As of June 2015 the manor remained on the market with approximately £500,000 of renovation work needed" this is supported by an article in the Sunday Telegraph (see Verifiability, not truth which explains why citations to reliable sources is needed for the claims made). I have not seen the episode of the Channel 4 programme you refer to, and can make no comment about its accuracy - I note this is no longer available, however the article just says that the house was used for an episode and doesn't make any claims about its accuracy or otherwise (I have just updated one of the references saying that the episode did focus on the building).


 * You say "The issue with the article is that it pulls a lot of this information into one source, which is not acceptable. The owner did not want the original article written, it is a private house." I would suggest that the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to pull together information from several sources into one place - why do you say this is unacceptable? I also feel that although it is a private house it is of public interest. I am not qualified to comment on the "right to privacy" under EU law but hope the focus of the article is on the building rather than any individual who might own it. Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of living persons may also be of interest and if you feel this is being broken by the article please say where.


 * I have already suggested some places you can raise your concerns to get the input of others (I am not the only person to have edited the article) and others may have different views - wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If you do not feel your concerns are being addressed you can ask for administrators input at the Administrators' noticeboard.&mdash; Rod talk 19:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Please stop removing text you don't like and trying to sanitise and censor Wikipedia. If you persist, you may be blocked from editing. Please read and take on board the advice given above. Contacting a Television company and agreeing that your house can be used as the subject of a Television programme changes a private house to an issue in the public domain. Please read WP:OWN. Thank you  Velella  Velella Talk 21:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Chapel Cleeve Manor shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  Velella  Velella Talk 21:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted your third try today, both because the text you have been removing is not improper by Wikipedia standards, and because the text you replace it with is unreferenced and unencyclopedic. I suggest you re-read the excellent guidance that both and  have given you above. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  22:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Chapel Cleeve Manor.  Velella  Velella Talk 21:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you.  Velella  Velella Talk 21:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Chapel Cleeve Manor. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a note to let you know that I intended to block you for edit-warring, not for breaching WP:3RR. The edit-warring and the disruption to the article has been significant - hence, the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)