User talk:Musichistory1Q84

November 2011
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Tara June Winch, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 10:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Tara June Winch, you may be blocked from editing. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 10:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:MelbourneStar. Thank you. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 10:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tara June Winch, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 13:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm an admin here on Wikipedia. In fact, MelbourneStar is completely wrong.  First, your removals aren't vandalism, because you were removing them for a specific reason.  Second, the user is wrong to try to keep them in the article--since the comments were found to be unacceptable in court, mentioning them in Winch's article is basically adding weakly sourced irrelevant, negative information to a biography of a living person, which is a direct violation of WP:BLP.  The information should be removed.
 * The one thing that might help you in the future, though, is that, when you make a major change to a Wikipedia article, please use an edit summary to explain why you removed the info. If other people revert you, then start discussing it on the article talk page.  If you think the information is directly hurting a living person, and isn't reliably sourced, leave a message at the BLP noticeboard, and someone there can help look into the issue.  I'm going to leave a message for MelbourneStar also explaining why they are wrong in this matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Musichistory1Q84, I'm really sorry if I made you feel upset, or threatened, insecure, or insulted - look whatever it may of been, I sencirely apologise. The section you didn't want in the article about you, has been removed. It will stay removed, too. I'm not all that nasty, as my edits may of seemed, so if you need any help with editing or anything related, I'm here. Again, sorry. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 06:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, apologies about the slightly hostile reception. Wikipedia sees a lot of wholesale deletion of content, and when the content in question appears to be backed up by sources the usual response is to restore it and warn the person in question not to do so again.

I really don't see much chance of the material in question being restored to the biographical article on you. However, this doesn't mean that you get a veto over what is in there, and Wikipedia policy on conflicts of interest frowns on editing that appears directed at turning such articles into puff pieces. A good way to improve the article without running into any potential overreactions would be to provide references that we currently don't include in the article on the article talk page.

Nevard (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * }