User talk:Infokeypad

June 2021
Hello, I'm Laplorfill. I noticed that you recently removed content from Andreas Apostolopoulos without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Laplorfill (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Infokeypad. I noticed that you recently added content to Andreas Apostolopoulos that was previously deleted without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the added content has been deleted. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page and perhaps we could have a open conversation as to what made you make changes to this page. Thanks. Infokeypad.

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, as you did at Andreas Apostolopoulos, you may be blocked from editing. Laplorfill (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of getting angry and making threats to ban or block, why dont you explain yourself as to why you are undoing or reverting edits? The information you are reverting back to is not accurate information or relevant to the page topic. Just because there are credible sources that published an article doesnt mean the information in the article was accurate. Why are you so interested in this Wikipedia page? Are you personally connected to this individual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infokeypad (talk • contribs)

June 2021 more
Your recent editing history 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --T*U (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

About sources
In your user page you write about "credible sources". In an environment where in principle everybody can edit any article, we cannot base the content on what you or I or any other editor knows (or think we know). This is called original research, see WP:OR. By the same token, it is also not up to us to evaluate whether a source is credible or not. In Wikipedia we talk about verifiability and reliable sources. The content of articles must be based upon external sources that are verifiable, so that other editors can check the content against the sources, see WP:VERIFIABILITY. In order to present content from a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV), content should be based on reliable sources, a concept you can read more about at WP:RS. If we think that a source is not realiable, we can discuss it in the talk page of the article or raise the question at the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN), but we do not censor what the reliable sources say, even if we disagree. Please take some time to read the links I have provided. --T*U (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?
In your user page you state that Its important that people, corporations or organizations have the ability to delete information from Wikipedia ..., and you indicate that people that "have no personnel connection" should be restricted in their editing. This leads me to believe that you have not quite understood how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is based on a neutral point of view. If there are different meanings about a theme, this means that we should present both viewpoints as they are described in reliable sources. What we should not do, is to censor one viewpoint in order to "protect" another viewpoint.

Wikipedia is in principle edited by neutral editors that are not connected to the subject of the articles. If you contribute about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships, it is called a conflict of interest, see WP:COI. Even if it is discouraged, it is not forbidden to edit articles if you have a COI, but editors are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content.

Your user page and several of your edit summaries seem to indicate that you may have such COI. If that is the case, you should definitely declare it. Please take some time to read WP:COI very carefully and act accordingly. --T*U (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)