User talk:Riordanlj

February 2013
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Linda Riordan, 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. Arctic  Kangaroo  11:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Linda Riordan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Linda Riordan
Hi. You need to be aware that you edit summary for this diff is a pretty major issue in that it seems to suggest that there would be some form of action taken if content, which is cited I note, is included in Wikipedia. If you'd like to read WP:LEGAL I'm sure you'd understand the rationale behind such things.

I'm assuming you're aware of WP:BLP and, in particular, WP:BIOSELF? It's important within these to make sure that we get the details of any BLP article right but that we ensure balance and fairness. The second link there has a section entitled Legal issues. It suggests a variety of approaches to take.

I'm going to raise the issue at the BLP noticeboard to ensure that it's looked at by other editors - see Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. I'm also going to review the sources directly that the content you have removed cites. Having said that, just because it says things in printed sources such as the Telegraph it doesn't necessarily mean that they are a) worthy of inclusion in a wikipedia article (too much trivia and it just gets trivial of course) and b) correct. If they are incorrect I'd assume that some form of correction has been made in the press or some other article exists which will show that? Rather than simply removing content it would be really helpful if you could try and explain what the problem is precisely with the content it might be helpful - certainly more helpful than simply saying that it's wrong.

I'll start a discussion on the article talk page as more editors might look there - but feel free to respond here as well. And, if you need it, ask for help. There are all sorts of places you can ask and all sorts of really helpful people who will try to help but, at the same time, ensure that the article remains fair and balanced. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)