User talk:Louiseclegg

May 2014
Hello, I'm K6ka. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Angus Taylor (politician) with this edit, without 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. Thanks. --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 11:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Angus Taylor (politician). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.
 * If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Angus Taylor (politician) was changed by Louiseclegg (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.857898 on 2014-05-18T02:12:41+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Angus Taylor (politician), you may be blocked from editing. Tutelary (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Angus Taylor (politician). Tutelary (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
Hello, Louiseclegg. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Angus Taylor (politician), you may have a conflict of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Canterbury Tail  talk  02:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

There is discussion about you at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Help with biographical articles
Since you are in a dispute about an article on a living person, it would help if you could read Biographies of living persons/Help. It also provides information on how you can contact the Wikipedia volunteer response team (OTRS) with your concerns. Liz Read! Talk! 13:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Angus Taylor
Hi Louiseclegg. Following on from Liz's comments - it is very good advice to contact the volunteer response team - I was hoping to engage with you and see how I can help. At the moment, I't taken the article back to an older state, so that the text you are concerned about isn't visible. However, we can't leave the article this way - because of the nature of Wikipedia, we need to try and get consensus about how best to tackle the article and the concerns you've raised, and eventually it will need to be opened again for editing.

Thus as things stand I think we have two issues. The first is that I noticed that you have been removing a lot of content, but I don't know which parts in particular you see as a problem. If would help a great deal if you could say where your concerns lie, either here or, better yet, on the discussion page. To give some context, Wikipedia's desire to provide a neutral point of view on biographies means that sometimes we need to provide coverage that the subjects of the articles will disapprove of. However, the collaborative editing environment means that sometimes people add material which is a real problem. The difficulty Wikipedia faces is working out where in that range a given text lies, and for that there's a need for open discussion. Looking at the text you removed, I can see a couple of points which ring alarm bells, but I'm concerned that I may be missing something important. Any help you can give on working out where the problems lie would be much appreciated.

The other issue lies with the use of the Jridley2010 account. I don't know if you created that account, or if it is simply being managed by someone else who is concerned about the article, but generally we're worried about the use of alternate accounts. If it is an account you own, I need to ask that you just stick to this one.

Finally, I'm sorry that your experiences of late have been frustrating. I've been on WIkipedia for a long time, and have had a lot of frustrating experiences. Generally it works, but where it breaks down is situations like yours, where a small number of people are involved in a conflict over an article. When there are a lot of voices the discussion works and figures things out, but where there aren't the project has difficulty finding a resolution. Fortunately, in response to this sort of situation, Wikipedia has a number of effective dispute resolution tools which can address things, once you understand how they work. At any rate, I'd like to assist where I can. - Bilby (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, we haven't heard from you in a few days. I understand you may be busy and perhaps you are no longer checking your your talk page or using your wikipedia account. But if you are, I would encourage you to either reply here or elsewhere on wikipedia such as at WP:BLP/N explaining the problems with the content that you saw, or contact WP:OTRS as has been suggested. Do understand that although the article is currently locked, this is not intended to be a permanent and the article will be unlocked sometime in the near future (in 25 days or less). It has a few more eyes, and some people have expressed concern about some of the content, so it's likely it won't all be added back. But there's also a fair chance some of it will be. If you have particular problems, it'll be best if you explain what these are now before this happens. Nil Einne (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Please visit Angus Taylor (politician) to see comments on the talk page. There is an active discussion in relation to the edits you made. It would be good to resolve these issues ASAP so the page can be returned to an informative and BLP-compliant state. ArthurSkittle (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)