User talk:Histnewbie

Hello, Histnewbie. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Fasken, 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 and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.
 * Fasken has a history of conflict of interest editing, as can be seen on the talk page's COI editor template. Before you began editing, IP addresses from the region of the firm began trying furiously to try and take down the maintenance tags from the Fasken page that alerted people to this without bothering to improve the page, a classic sign of conflict of interest editing. Next, your account pops up with no prior edits right after the IPs are warned, and instantly resumes the same behaviour--removing the maintenance tags--adding some unsourced or ill-sourced edits. As a new editor, I would alert you to WP:SOCK, as using multiple accounts to pursue the same behaviour is against the rules. WP:MEAT covers edits that are pursued through a collusion of multiple editors. Maybe this is all a one in a million coincidence, but this level of suspicious editing - along with the problems that persist from Fasken's own edits beforehand - means that there are enough concerns to keep the conflict of interest tag on the entry until someone reviews the page who has no perceived connection to the firm. Isingness (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As per some of the comments below, having a conflict of interest through an association with Fasken does transfer to editing the firm's competitors. I would urge caution in addressing the page's of Fasken's competitors as much as I urge caution in your addressing the Fasken page itself. Isingness (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019
Hello, I'm Mosrod. I noticed that in this edit to Davis Polk & Wardwell, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mosrod Talk  00:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Large-scale deletions
Hello, and welcome. I, too, have just noticed that you've made a lot of ambitious content deletions in the legal arena, most of which look like they would be better updated than deleted. I'm afraid you're in for some reversals because Chambers & Partners, for instance, according to the National Law Review, "is one of the legal industry’s most prestigious rankings — and also the most notoriously difficult to crack." Personally, I've had them on the back-burner to make a new page for a while. Also, awards are issued by all sorts of organizations to all sort of other organizations, and are not rendered immaterial just because they may come from private enterprise. To wit: List of awards. Lindenfall (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019
Hello, and thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia! However, you should know that it is not a good idea to remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Histnewbie, I am warning you about your recent conduct. You have been on a week-long rampage through dozens of articles about law firms, removing well-sourced content as “advert” or “peacock” or “press release like content” or “COI edits”. At first you even rejected respected directories like Chambers and removed material simply for having a dead link; I think you learned better than that but you are continuing to remove sourced material and content that is normally included in law firm articles. This is disruptive and needs to stop. I suggest you look back through your own contributions, and where you have made massive removals of sourced content like the ones I have highlighted above, you revert yourself and restore the material. Otherwise, other editors are going to have to spend hours reviewing your contributions. Look, I get it: you are wreaking revenge on all the other law firm articles in retaliation for some material that was removed from the article you are interested in. Please read WP:POINT. If you keep this up it may be necessary to call for a block from editing, or a topic ban from articles about law firms. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Message understood. Will take a cool down period and divert contributions away from legal field for a while. Histnewbie (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Histnewbie

Proposed deletion of Adam Dodek


The article Adam Dodek has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "no notable content"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.


 * I see that you are 'back to the bar', in a manner of speaking. It would benefit Wikipedia if you would provide content and sources, such as to the Adam Dodek article that you started, but seem to have abandoned, rather than your repetitive dismantling of much of what you encounter here. Yes, it is a little more work to create than to destroy, but it is a knowledge base, not a knowledge drain here, and content creation is, you may find, more rewarding. Instead of sticking banners all over multiple pages, perhaps you could do a little research and improve those articles, which is why most of us are here. Countless articles need better sources, please collaborate with the effort. Lindenfall (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Adam Dodek) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Adam Dodek.

User:Barkeep49 while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Histnewbie! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 21:19, Wednesday, June 5, 2019 (UTC)