User talk:Lwilliamsfr

Welcome!


Hello, Lwilliamsfr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
 * Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Jim1138 (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Melissa Farley
Please use the talk page: talk:Melissa Farley to discuss issues. Avoid adding commentary to an article. See help:talk pages and wp:talk page guidelines. Per wp:verifiability (WP:V) Any content in the article should be supported by wp:reliable sources (RS) in wp:citations. See wp:biography of living persons. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

BTW: Adding commentary to articles is considered wp:disruptive editing. Put it on the talk page. You can also open a ticket on wp:BLPN. Jim1138 (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, as Jim1138 pointed out to you, please use the article's talkpage to discuss any issues. Continuing to add commentary to articles will likely get you blocked from editing. 172.58.41.174 (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As said above, the comments you are trying to add are serious accucations, if you have evidence to support them then please do so through the avenues posted above so that it can be properly looked into. Posting these comments as a "warning" on the article is simply not how Wikipedia works, if there is a problem with content it needs to be fixed-- Jac 16888 Talk 21:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

December 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Sro23 (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018
Your recent editing history at Melissa Farley shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. Binksternet (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not an “edit war”, you are attempting to delete well-established information that would help readers understand the nature of information on this page. It does not belong on a talk page, it belongs front and center. There are a number of links to reputable sources that support the perspective that you are deleting. What documentation do you have that any of the information you are deleting is inaccurate? None. Lwilliamsfr (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please can you read what has already been said to you previously on this page. If you have an issue with the content on this page, and nobody is trying to say you don't, this is the not the way to go about fixing it. We don't put warnings that content is false or biased or whatever, we fix it. As has been said above, if you want this sorting out please take the necessary steps to do so, all your current actions are going to do is get you blocked-- Jac 16888 Talk 23:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Jac16888, check out the history page. There have been attempts to post accurate and neutral content for more than a decade. There is a consistent pattern of biased editors deleting this information. The site has been locked down at least twice. We are addressing the problem: editors who attempt to post publications or news or information about prostitution or trafficking as researched by Farley - are silenced by biased wikipedia editors who should not be engaged in editing out a perspective that they do not agree with. Lwilliamsfr (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you are not addressing anything. What you are trying to add will never be allowed, ever. If you continue adding it, you will be blocked, and then who is going to argue your point? If you felt Encyclopedia Britannica had a biased article would you glue a warning label on that page in every copy? That's what you're doing here and it is not how Wikipedia works, there is not a single page on the project with such content. As has been said several times, there are many many avenues through which you can request assistance from neutral parties, please pursue one of them, because I can guarantee that attempting to add your content again will just end up with you being blocked.-- Jac 16888 Talk 23:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)