User talk:Charles A Micklewright

Lilford Hall
My lawyer has asked me to help resolve a dispute that I have been told has occurred over the last few days in respect of the Wikipedia article for Lilford Hall. I am the owner of Lilford Hall, so I am well aware of the true and full facts regarding Lilford Hall. Firstly, I am informed that a newspaper has illegally used some pictures of Lilford Hall (for which copyright is owned by the photographer) and that referring to this article within Wikipedia is thus copyright infringement. I strongly advise all parties to stop linking the Lilford Hall article in Wikipedia to such a newspaper article. Secondly, I am informed that mention is being made to an entry in the ‘At Risk Register’ which was made over 10 years ago, and now understandably contains completely out of date information. Reference to this register is thus misleading, to say the least. In conclusion, I am happy to communicate with any party on these matters should they so wish. I also understand that the idea has been raised of an independent editor of Wikipedia being appointed to mediate on this dispute, and I would support such an idea, and indeed I would be happy to contribute as to factual information on Lilford Hall to such a mediator should they so require. In the meantime, I suggest all references to the two areas of dispute are left out of the Wikipedia article until the mediator resolves such issues. Regards, CA Micklewright — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles A Micklewright (talk • contribs) 12:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello, Charles A Micklewright, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit the teahouse, or ask me on my talk page, or place   on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! Woody (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Lilford Hall; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Woody (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Multiple accounts
Given your edit history and the names of the account I presume that is also your account? Our guideline on multiple accounts states that "It is recommended that contributors not use multiple accounts without good reason." Could I ask that you edit under one account and stick with it please? I also note that you state you have a link to the Lilford Hall. Woody (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming this account is the one that you will use going forward. Please stop using the other account. May I suggest that you redirect that page to here so it does not get confusing for other editors? I am happy to do this for you if you are unsure how to do it. Woody (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

COI
We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline. COI editing is very strongly discouraged. Please discuss your issues with the article on the article talk page and not on this talk page. I know this is a lot of information I have put on your page but if you have any questions please contact me. I will be watching this page so I will see any response. Regards, Woody (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems to be quite a complicated content dispute, more complicated than it would initially appear. I do have to go back to the conflict of interest guidelines and note that you really should not be editing the article. If you continue to edit the article (when it is unprotected of course) then you are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
 * In terms of the nature of your concerns, in the English Wikipedia articles are written on the basis of verifiability. This means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight. You need to provide sources on the talk page of the article that contradict the already sourced information that you are trying to contest. Please engage in the discussion on the article talk page. Woody (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)