User talk:Historyofpoetry

Dear "History,"

I'm reaching out to seek consensus on the Barrett Watten page. I am trying to avoid violating the NPOV standards, but am interested in adding factual and relevant information to this page. Is there any way you would be interested in finding such a consensus? --Stophidingbehind (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's too late for you to start seeking consensus. You should now respond to the report at the edit warring noticeboard.   General Ization  Talk  16:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019
Your recent editing history at Barrett Watten shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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.  General Ization Talk  15:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I redacted your request on the Talk page. Please note that defamatory content is just as much a violation of BLP when it appears on a Talk page, even when reproduced in a request to remove it, as it is when it appears in an article. Please do not reproduce defamatory content you propose to remove on a Talk page, as it defeats the purpose of removing it from the article.  General Ization  Talk 

Discretionary sanctions
SarahSV (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Hi Historyofpoetry, several single-purpose accounts (SPAs) who were causing problems on the Barrett Watten page were blocked recently. Your account is also an SPA and today you seemed to accuse another editor of COI, even though she appears entirely uninvolved. I think it's only fair that Watten should be represented on the talk page, but you should make clear that that's what you're doing, if indeed that is what you're doing. Please read our conflict of interest guideline, particularly the section WP:COIDISCLOSE, which explains how to disclose a COI. If it applies to you, you can simply leave a note on your user page. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)