User talk:Bridgetredford

September 2016
Your recent editing history at Don S. McMahon 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

 * It appears that your removal of part of an article, which is what has caused your problem, was your very first edit using this account. This is an unusual initial action from a new editor. Would you like to comment on your motivation for making this edit? And if you feel able to answer without accidentally outing anyone, do you have personal knowledge of the subject of the article?--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't mind commenting on my motivation. I have always been intending on making a Wikipedia account so I could play my part in contributing but never got around to it. I do have personal knowledge (not closely but some) of the subject of the article and when I saw their Wikipedia page that served as motivation to set up an account and remove the negative information on them as I didn't believe it was necessary to the have one of the only pieces of information on his page as quite derogatory. The article that I removed did upset me as I do distantly have knowledge the subject of the page. So, irrationally and in a very immature manner I removed it without properly thinking about my actions. I then realised that I had made a big mistake and endeavoured to right my wrongs by, instead of removing the verifiable information I believed to be negative, balancing it out with verifiable positive information, which, in turn, served in improving the state of the page and making sure that it wasn't negatively bias. I hope that properly explains my motivation (which was, simply put, my emotion caused by a personal connection to the subject of the page). I have learnt from my mistakes and, in the future if given the chance, will not allow my emotions to get the better of me and will instead uphold the truth and abide by the community policies. All I need is a second chance. I made a big mistake and for that I am sincerely sorry. Thank you for taking the time to look into my case. I really appreciate it. Again, if this isn't written in the correct way or location, I apologise for that also. I am new and still trying to figure out how Wikipedia works. And I'm also sorry because I'm not sure what you mean by "outing" someone. If I have done that, I apologise again. Bridgetredford (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Bridget Redford.
 * Bridget, I'm here for two reasons. One is to answer some of your questions, and the other is because Anthony asked me to comment. If you haven't already, you should read the comments at Sockpuppet investigations/InfinteOswins. It's not possible to "prove your innocence" by checking your IP address. The only way your IP address(es) would be useful is if we could check the other accounts's IP address(es), but that's impossible because the data for that account no longer exists; it's retained for only 90 days. As for your comments here, I'm afraid I'm a bit jaded because I deal with socks almost every single day and have for quite some time. The vast majority of those socks claim they're innocent. Obviously, some of them really are not socks, but unfortunately most are. Still, the behavioral evidence against you, albeit enough to have blocked you, is limited because so few edits were made by the other account, and there is no technical evidence to support the block. On that basis, I would be willing to extend good faith to your statements and have no objection to your being unblocked. Hopefully, you will become a worthwhile contributor to the encyclopedia and this experience will be a dim, unpleasant memory.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for answering my questions. I really appreciate you taking the time to look into my case. I fully respect your decision in initially blocking me as I realise how important it is to maintain the safety and quality of Wikipedia but I can assure you that, if unblocked, I will not let you or this community down. I really appreciate your support in giving me a second chance to prove my claims of innocence and my plans for more positive contributions in the future. I look forward to becoming a worthwhile contributor the encyclopedia. I apologise for taking up your time. Bridgetredford (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Bridget Redford
 * If unblocked? You already are :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry! I posted that before I then very happily saw you had unblocked me. Thank you so very much! I feel like a massive weight has been lifted! :) Bridgetredford (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Bridget Redford