User talk:PoppyTohill

November 2014
Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Brooke Fraser does not have an edit summary.This is particularly important when removing content from articles

Edit summary content is visible in:
 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list and
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Noyster  (talk),  14:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Brooke Fraser, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Brooke Fraser. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, PoppyTohill. 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 Brooke Fraser, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

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.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * 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. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. ''based on this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Walter_Görlitz&diff=635477968&oldid=635477606 you should not be editing that article. Adding material that you want to promote is not appropriate. Only material that is supported with references from reliable sources should be included.'' Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Your addition to Brooke Fraser has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 03:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Your recent editing history at Brooke Fraser 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Bbb23 (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)