User talk:Consoltremass

Welcome!
Hello, Consoltremass, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Blythwood (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Robert King (conductor) article
Hello, sorry, but I've decided to undo some aspects of your edits. My reason for this is that Mr. King's conviction is an important part of his life biography and it needs to be discussed with citations - this doesn't violate NPOV.

I of course realise that it's very important that when dealing with biography articles on criminals of this nature that we show sensitivity and make sure edits are carefully made, and I welcome any suggestions for improving the text of the article such as extra sources that could be added. Contact me if you have any thoughts or questions about this. Blythwood (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Your edits to Robert King (conductor)
You have made, again, edits to Robert King (conductor), seemingly to obscure or lessen the emphasis on King's conviction for indecent assaults against children. The most concerning edit is this, where you remove important information and describe the conviction as a case of 'indecent dating'. Your account is a single purpose account that has only ever edited to show King in a better light. If relevant, you might wish to check the conflict of interest page. Whilst all editors agree that these matters must be treated delicately, it is against Wikipedia policy to remove carefully-sourced facts about relevant criminal convictions. They are not to be removed or obscured through claims of 'tabloid journalism'. As part of assuming good faith, I am writing to your talk page, rather than reporting this account to the relevant noticeboards. If you would like to discuss the contents of the article further, please post at Talk:Robert King (conductor) and I, and others, will reply in due course (or reply here, on your talk page, and I will reply back). 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:ADDE:6692:B709:4EF2 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I want to endorse this commenter's conclusions. Your edits do not fit Wikipedia standards and NPOV policy as you claim, and frankly are in such bad taste that I can't tell if your aim is to whitewash Mr. King's reputation or to subtly damage it. Obviously, if Mr. King has made any formal statement that he continues to contest these claims, or feels that he got a bad deal, we can cite that, but I don't want to see any further edits in this line - if you want to edit Mr. King's page further, go to his talk page, request an edit and write out an explanation of how your proposed changes will make the article more informative. Blythwood (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Many thanks to you both for making the edit and contributions to Mr. Kings page. Let me make it very clear there is absolutely no desire nor any emphasis to obscure any information. Nor can I recall editing anything along the lines of 'indecent dating'.  The facts speak for themselves.  If your username had been listed, I would have contacted you sooner. However, some of the more recent edits i.e. those of last week are not factually correct and some biographical information has been removed.  Those will be edited and restored in due course. The headings of the many paragraphs, I will leave. Neither of you actually own this edit so I will not agree to any prior consent to making any changes. Thanks for your understanding CT 12:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The 'indecent dating' edit is here. Could you give more information about factually incorrect errors or sourced biographical information that has been removed on the talk page (or here)? I cannot see any right now, although the article would benefit from a bit of copy-editing generally.
 * Your penultimate sentence is concerning. Wikipedia works through consensus. Controversial edits, especially those made with a conflict of interest, should only be made with the blessing of consensus. Numerous editors have raised objections to your edits. I suggest you instead take the proper course of action instead of attempting to 'force through' your edits. The article has been the subject of disruption for too long and it will not be tolerated any further. 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:89AB:68DD:17E5:DFE (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And, to clarify, Blythwood and I are different users. My IP address often changes. I will be keeping an eye on the article, the talk page and your talk page in case there are any questions or problems.. 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:89AB:68DD:17E5:DFE (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I am fully au fait with the approach, guiding principles and mechanics on Wikipedia. Coming back to the edits in hand - clearly - this is a misunderstanding.  There was an error in the edit.  It definitely ought to have read differently, I apologize for that. Some of the biographical information has been removed from the page, notably: - that he is married and has children - this is biographical, - the fact that he keeps a herd of rare breeds sheep - this is biographical - and NOT entirely dissimilar to John Eliot Gardiner who incidentally keeps cattle on his organic farm, - the book referenced and cited under "==Published works==" was in fact published in 1994 and not 1995.  Happy to provide a reference from the publisher if required.  I will be re-editing and undoing some of the biographical changes made and naturally will provide non-biased and factual references.  This does not amount to trivia, but happy to discuss and reach consensus, if need be.CT 18:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for giving more detail, Consoltremass: it is really helpful. To reply to your points in turn:
 * The edit about family and rare-breeds sheep is here. I should have been clearer in my edit description. Although it probably is trivia, I actually removed it because the given source did not support the assertion (and we have to be careful about descriptions of living persons that are not sourced well). If you can find a suitable reference, then do re-insert it: it would be good to have. In general, we don't need to go into detail about a subject's private life (if it is not notable, but a short sentence like this does no harm.
 * The Purcell book edit is here. At the time of editing, one part of the article said 1994 and the other said 1995. I had a quick search, assuming one was a simple mistake, found the date 1995 on multiple pages (such as (1 and 2) and made the change. If this is wrong and the correct date is 1994, I apologise and I more than encourage you to correct it (a reference would be good if the websites giving 1995 are actually wrong).
 * Thank you again for responding! 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:5D58:C2F8:67C1:9925 (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)