User talk:Amindformurder

Attack
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on this page, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because the article is a page created primarily to disparage its subject or a biography of a living person that is controversial in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral point of view version in the history to revert to. (CSD G10).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting the article, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate the article itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. CSDWarnBot (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

COI editing
Hello Amindformurder. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Noreen Renier, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Khazar (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Court papers
You might like to note that policy precludes the use of court filings in writing biographical articles about living people such as Noreen Renier‎. Cusop Dingle (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Noreen Renier
Please stop adding material to this living person's biography. Your sourcing is inappropriate and the final product is an unambiguous attack page. See WP:BLPN for the relevant discussion. Thank you. JFHJr (㊟) 14:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Simply repeating these edits without engaging in discussion and without consensus constitutes Edit warring. Please engage in the discussion.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Your further reversion is Disruptive editing.  The edit summary 24-Hour auto replenishment GHIUFCORRECT is meaningless and certainly does not constitute an explanation, let alone a discussion.  If you wish to retain your ability to edit, you must stop and discuss.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Noreen Renier shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at Noreen Renier. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Further edits at Noreen Renier
You have already been blocked for violating Wikipedia policies at this page. You have now returned to this page to repeat the behaviour for which you were blocked. The only outcome of this will be another, longer, block. In this edit your summary states Federal court decision in 2010 ruled that Noreen Renier is a public figure and failed to show cause for removal of critical information about her posted on Wiki and the internet by critics This is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living persons. Your material is not being removed because of the court ruling you refer to, it is being removed because it violates Wikipedia policies. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again I have remove material you have added here. In this case, you added external links to websites attacking the subject of the article.  These contravene Biographies_of_living_persons and External_links points 2 and 11.  You are apparently intent on adding only negative material about this person.  From now I strongly suggest that you review Wikipedia policies, and then post your proposed changes at Talk:Noreen Renier and wait to gain agreement from other editors.  If you continue to add material in contravention of Wikipedia policies in this fashion, without the slightest effort to engage others in discussion, you are very likely to be blocked again, this time indefinitely.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Warnings
I warned you in February that Wikipedia policy does not allow the use of court filings as sources for biographical articles about living people. Since then a number of editors have made similar remarks, and you have even been blocked for editing against policy. You have now repeated the use of court filings and your edits have been reverted yet again as being against policy. If you are not willing to conform to Wikipedia policy, then you are likely to be completely removed from the project. Please do not let it come to that. Discuss the edits you want to make at Talk:Noreen Renier and abide by Consensus. Please. Cusop Dingle (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)