User talk:Constance Harris

BLP violations
Your (unreliable and partisan) source does not even mention Abedin. If you continue to use this biography of a living person as a coatrack, you will soon find yourself blocked from editing Wikipedia. Prolog (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

NOT BLP violation
It is not a BLP violation to link a source from the United States House of Representatives that most certainly does mention Ms. Abedin by name. It is not an unreliable nor a partisan source when reporting the fact that bi-partisan letters of support for the investigations exist written by experts in national security and intelligence (James Woolsey, Director of the CIA was appointed by Bill Clinton) and others including former DIA head as well as a former U.S. Attorney General. How is that a BLP violation? Constance Harris (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Where does it say its a bi partisan letter? Add to Gomet's bio if you want. Its undue weight and not needed. Have you even used the talk page? --Mollskman (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your source does not mention Abedin, and neither does the Woolsey letter it links to. You have to dig into the "Conservative Leaders Letter", and there is certainly nothing "bi-partisan" about that. These sources fail BLP standards by a country mile. Prolog (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Both sources ask for the investigations. It was never intended to be a commentary on the letters but a report on their existence. Scrubbing the "added weight" of existence for letters of support for investigations by bi-partisan (yes, Woolsey was appointed by President Bill Clinton) experts and leaders is truly Orwellian.Constance Harris (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As long as reliable third-party sources don't report about the letters and link Abedin to the claims, the existence of the letters is encyclopedically irrelevant. Prolog (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
Your recent editing history at Huma Abedin 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. See BRD for how this is done. 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. GB fan 02:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)