User talk:KateLVM

Welcome!
Hello, KateLVM, 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 complete 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! Neutralitytalk 05:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Please read
Please read the following important policies:
 * Identifying reliable sources
 * Fringe theories
 * Edit warring
 * Neutral point of view.

Thanks, --Neutralitytalk 05:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Important notice regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, fringe theories
Neutralitytalk 05:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Use of the pejorative label 'conspiracy theorist' to those with whom editors disagree is not much more than a term of abuse. It adds no information and cannot be seen as neutral. It just tries to disqualify a person, in this case a recognised academic. If super-editors allow this abuse it will further discredit wikipedia's reputation as a source of neutral information. (unsigned comment left by KateLVM)


 * You can sign your posts with four tildes in a row. To respond, the term "conspiracy theorist" as applied to the articles you've edited isn't being dreamed up by Wikipedia editors - it's used in the reliable sources, which are helpfully cited right there. If you have a problem, you can take it up with the sources, not Wikipedia. since multiple editors disagree with you, and there is no Wikipedia policy-based reason for your preferred wording, you need to stop trying to change the article to remove this text. If you wish, you can try to seek consensus on the talk page, but you may not unilaterally continue editing as you have. Neutralitytalk 05:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

'Conspiracy theory' of course has a meaning, but to allow that label as a personal form of abuse or labelling against well published academics is simply a term of abuse, usually attempting disqualify a critic. It reminds me why in academia we tell students never to use Wikipedia as a source.

October 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Tim Anderson (political economist). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. -

I have warned two abysive editors for vandalism of my contributions and have reverted that vandalism with the rvv notice. Why accuse me? (UTC)

KateLVM (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.''You are currently engaged in a slow motion edit war with a number of other editors. If you continue editing the article rather than engaging in discussion on the talk page, you will be blocked or otherwise sanctioned.'' Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, KateLVM. Please note that if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI 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 COI 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Kindly tell me, why this innuendo? If you have some accusation, please make it (UTC) KateLVM (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at [[Tim Anderson (political economist)]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)