User talk:Matt smith987

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * Welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style


 * Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or sock puppetry.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

Next plc
Hello, I'm Dormskirk. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Please can you resolve the issues with the edits you have made to the Next plc article. In particular Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wiki is a fact-based encyclopedia and should not contain profit forecasts
 * You have inserted several bare urls
 * There is inconsistency in the use of tenses - everything should be in the past sense
 * A number of facts you have inserted do not agree with the sources e.g. the number of international stores in the article does not agree with the number of international stores referred to in the FT article (200)


 * In addition to the above comments by Dormskirk, which I agree with, I also have concerns over a possible conflict of interest and promotional editing. Please engage with the article talk page at Next and cease trying to force changes through edit warring, which will likely end up with you being blocked and will not result in your changes being accepted. Thanks. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Next plc shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Your forecast for the company's profit does not match the source you used
Please note your recent edit, which estimates £630-640 million for the profit, and cites the Telegraph for that information. The Telegraph does not provide that figure. They quote the company's forecast of its own profit: "It now expects to make pre-tax profits of between £575m and £620m". Please don't insert statements which aren't verifiable from existing publications. Your own personal forecasts should not go in the article. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The company itself, in its third quarter interim management statement from Oct 31, says "We now expect Group profit before tax to be in the range £590m to £620m (previously £575m to £620m)", and there have been no updates since. Also, checking analysts' forecasts since then, I see a range of £605m to £618m. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that you have again inserted a profit forecast of £630m despite this not being in the public domain. Can you not see that this could cause a false market in the shares? Dormskirk (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Warning
Matt smith987, Wikipedia is build by people acting together in a collegiate manner and building consensus to arrive at articles that are neutral and reliably sourced. Significant concerns have been made regarding your edits to the Next plc article. You've been notified about these concerns, and invited to discussions at the article's talk page and at the administrators' notice board. You've ignored these requests, and instead have continued to restore the contended information, without explanation or discussion. While we always assume good faith on the part of new contributors, that must be tempered when someone acts as you have -simply attempting to force their own version of an article without discussion, explanation, or any indication of a willingness to compromise. I see that, after a hiatus, you have again returned to forcing your own preferred version of the article, and again you've offered no reasoning nor entered into any discussion. Blind reverting in this manner constitutes edit warring. So I must warn you that if you undo others changes again, without any attempt at a rational and collegial discussion regarding the relative merits of the disputed content, I will cease to assume that you are acting in good faith, and I will block your account from editing Wikipedia. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

48 hour block
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - PhilKnight (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion
Rather than discuss the matter, as you've repeatedly been requested to do, and as PhilKnight's block was intended to compel you to do (why did we need to resort to blocking in the first place, simply to get you to behave decently?) you've instead chosen to evade the block by editing as a new account, user:Ryansmith999. So I've blocked that too. You must understand that we have a decade of experience in protecting our encyclopaedia from people who want to force their agenda, and you won't succeed by resorting to silly stunts like this. Your only option is to discuss the concerns you have and build consensus with other users. I've extended the block on this account too, but you must use this account for all future edits. The block page you're looking at tells you how to appeal the block, but for that to succeed you'll need to persuade the administrator who replies that you're willing to behave cooperatively. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Matt smith987, you're fortunate that Finlay McWalter is more lenient than I am and saw your latest transgression before I did. For repeatedly adding blatant untruths (specifically, dishonestly exaggerating a company's profit guidance) and ignoring everyone who tells you about the problem, I would have indefinitely blocked you. This is pretty much your last chance to shape up, listen to what people are saying, and respond here on this talk page, if you want to avoid that eventuality. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)