User talk:Citylightsgirl

Your edits to Neil Clark (journalist)
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Citylightsgirl! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but please note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an Imageshack or Photobucket image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 20:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on the Neil Clark page
On the administrtor's noticeboard you have been directed to the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard where I have taken the liberty of reporting the dispute and acknowledging my own involvement, as you will see. Philip Cross 20:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

March 2007
Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Neil Clark (journalist). Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. - Denny 08:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Your last edit to Oliver Kamm, being the 4th revert on less than 24 hours, violates 3RR. Please self revert it, or you will be reported and blocked.

Regarding reversions made on March 8 2007 to Oliver Kamm
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 19:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Neil Clark
Hi Citylights, could you note, please, that editors are strongly discouraged from editing any topic, particularly biographies of living persons, with which they could be said to stand in a conflict of interest? It seems to me that your edits may indeed fit that description. It would be appreciated if you could stand back and allow uninvolved editors decide how best to proceed with the entry. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you continue to edit that article, you risk being blocked from editing as you appear to be in a clear conflict of interest. Please limit your participation to the talk page, where your suggestions will be welcomed. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

March 2007
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Neil Clark, you will be blocked from editing.

If you disagree with the content on a page, please visit its talk page, please do not change the disambiguation page. -- Whereizben - Chat with me 15:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

March 2007
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Neil Clark, you will be blocked from editing. -- Whereizben - Chat with me 16:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
You're clearly in a conflict of interest regarding the Neil Clark article, and your editing there has been inappropriate and disruptive. This is to let you know that if you edit it again, I intend to block your account and any other you turn up there to edit with. You're welcome to make suggestions on the talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

'If you edit it again, I intend to block your account'... but you did that before me editing it again. Unless you unblock my account I will be taking this up with the highest wikipedia authorities possible. That is no idle threat. I have broken NO wikipedia rules. You have the audacity to accuse me of COI, what about you? You have displayed a hostility to Neil Clark from the beginning and the malice you show towards him shows you are not a fit person to edit his page. You have put forward Neil Clark's page for deletion. I oppose that. And I see that I'm not the only one, though you deleted meenagh m's contribution also. On what grounds did you do that? Can you show me the rule that says only paid up members of the Oliver Kamm fan club can edit Neil Clark's page? Once a recommendation for deletion has been overturned, then it cannot be reinstated. You are in serious breach of the wikipedia rules. And why do you insist on reinserting a claim made by Oliver Kamm re the court case with Neil Clark which is not backed up by any source? Unless you unblock me by midnight GMT, tonight, 27th June, I will be making an official complaint to wikipedia about your editing.

citylightsgirl


 * You've done nothing but cause problems around this article. You've added vanity material; you've vandalized it; you've insulted other living persons on the talk page; you've imported a real-life legal row into Wikipedia; you've removed material that is demonstrably correct; and you've used a sockpuppet or meatpuppet to revert to your version. You seem to have access to unpublished personal details about Clark, and therefore I have to assume you're either Clark himself or someone close to him, which places you in a conflict of interest.


 * I have no hostility toward Clark; indeed, I haven't heard of him other than through this Wikipedia article. Go ahead and make your official complaint now, rather than waiting until midnight, because I have no intention of unblocking you. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Slim virgin:  please can you give examples of 1. me adding vanity material to Neil Clark's article; 2. my vandalising. editing and removing unsourced material which is only placed there out of malice is not vandalism. 3. explain how I have imported a 'real-life legal row' into wikipedia: I did not include deatils of Clark's legal row with Oliver Kamm. I even suggested they should be removed. 4. please give me an example of material which I have removed which is 'demonstrably correct'? 5. Please provide proof that I have used a 'sock puppet' or meat puppet'. I am not 'meenaghml' If 'meenaghml' wants to write in to defend Clark's page from your proposed deletion, its up to him/her. Or is the policy to call anyone who does not wish to denigrate Clark a 'sock puppet'? 6. Pllease can you provide evidence of my having access to unpublished details about Clark?

My interest has been not to puff up Neil Clark's entry but to try to guard it against malicous editing which breaches wikipedia rules. Why for instance do you keep reverting the claim (inserted by Oliver Kamm, who has a clear COI) about the judge striking Clark's case out, even though this is unsourced, yet removed the details about Clark's book 'Flying Ace' which has an ISBN number and is available to be bought on the internet? How do account for so much inconsistency? You say you are not hostile towards Clark, but why do you always rule against any edits which show him in a favourable light, and accept those which try to denigrate him?

I look forward to receiving your reply. citylightsgirl