User talk:Newsrooms

June 2011
Hello Newsrooms. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Olswang ‎, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant 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. Mtking (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Olswang. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mtking (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Please Note that also includes the edits you made as an IP Mtking (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Newsrooms, User:213.146.159.4 & Olswang. Thank you.

Edit warring at Olswang
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3. I caution you not to make any edits with an IP while your main account is blocked. That could get you into more trouble. Please become familiar with our policy on WP:Conflict of interest, and do not edit war on our articles. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk)

Block extended for evasion
Anonymous edits have continued at Olswang restoring the material that you favored while your block was still in effect. The block is therefore extended by three days. Please respect our policies. See WP:GAB for how to appeal. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That is ridiculous, how can I restore the information if my account is blocked?
 * I think you have now grasped the reason for the block. Adding flags to an article is what we consider to be pure promotional editing. You seem to be writing a corporate brochure. If you would agree to follow Wikipedia policy, you might be allowed to contribute normally. EdJohnston (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Please enlighten me as to why linklaters Allen & Overy and Clifford Chance WP has flags and awards, yet the page is intact with no warnings, edit warring, deletion, content editing or any other such annoyance. Any 'corporate brochure' information was removed and re-edited to mimick that of the law firms mentioned. I have received no help even after repeatedly asking for help to edit the content to stop these deletions as it would make more sense for the content to be edited to 'wikipedia standards' as apposed to deleted. Newsrooms (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The flags should not be in those other articles either, in my opinion. The article on Allen & Overy has lots of press coverage, while Olswang has none. Any firm that has represented important clients would surely have been covered in the press. Does your firm not have any similar coverage? EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well unfortunately your opinion doesn't count for much when my account is still blocked and the flags are still on those profiles. It promotes wikipedia as not having a neutral point of view and not maintaining a universal set of rules. Yes Olswang has been in the press and i can add in those references once my account has been unblocked, however until you can explain to me why you are allowing predominantly mtking, amongst others, to remove my edits whilst leaving virtually the same content on other law firm pages I think it's only fair for me to continue to reinstate them...however inconvenient that may be Newsrooms (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is lots of evidence of poor behavior from your account. We are still interested in having informative articles, so we are prepared to listen to you. Please offer material here on your talk page, that you think should be in the article. If it is up to our standards, some other editor will copy it from this page and add it to the article. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the award cruft and corporate brochure style office list from Linklaters, Allen & Overy and Clifford Chance, and am more than happy to work with you on Olswang or any other article that appears to be more like a corporate brochure than a encyclopaedia entry. Mtking (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Office locations
Hi,

It was discussed here and agreed that office locations like to one you keep adding are not encyclopaedic. Mtking (talk) 09:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was discussed above that the flags were not encyclopedic, those have been removed from the office locations now...Newsrooms (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * you did not follow the link (click here) to where it was discussed. Mtking (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Adoption response and Olswang
Sure, I'll adopt you. Also, I took a look at the Olswang page and then the post on your talk page and other pages about it and it seems as that mtking is right as consensus was achieved that said that the locations and such were not encyclopedic. That's just what I'm seeing. You can make a post about it on the project or such. Actually if you still believe that your edits are right than STOP editing it and take it to a project talk or the article talk page (Talk:Olswang). Plus don't sock that won't get you anywhere. Curtis23's Usalions 03:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)