User talk:Telmo6T

Welcome!
Hello, Telmo6T, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Seth Abramson, have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia: I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! JesseRafe (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and how to develop articles
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * Article wizard for creating new articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Discretionary sanctions alert
Politrukki (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Please do not falsely call well-sourced edits "vandalism". Thank you. Politrukki (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The content you added is already in the article. Extensively. There is no reason to put redundant content at the head of the article. Moreover, you misquoted your source, which said that the individuals listed were EITHER "citizen journalists" OR "conspiracy theorists" OR "self-anointed experts." So we have no idea which category Abramson was being put in. You chose "conspiracy theorist" because you have some sort of agenda. But if you're acting in good faith, you will see that the article already extensively deals with the subject you are trying to add to it. So I called your edit "vandalism" because it did not reflect any attempt to read the article you're editing first, misquotes a source, demonstrates an agenda, and puts elements atop an article that properly would go in its body (but are already there). So no, I don't call something "vandalism" lightly. Re-read the article and see that the content you want is already present, properly sourced.Telmo6T (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The article already says "Writers at The New Republic, The Atlantic, and Deadspin have described Abramson as a conspiracy theorist" and provides links. What possible reason could you have for repeating the same content at the head of the article with a misquote from the Guardian. Just leave the article as is. It already calls the guy a "conspiracy theorist" with multiple citations. And by the way, putting threatening comments on my page when you have acted inappropriately (as I've documented here) is extremely aggressive.Telmo6T (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My "agenda", which I have not hidden very well, is to summarise the article contents per relevant guidelines: MOS:INTRO and MOS:BLPLEAD. Promoting conspiracy theories is a relevant part of Abramson's notability, hence it is obvious that the lead should mention something.The Guardian says "controversial mix of high-profile resistance members that have sprung up on its fringes. They include self-proclaimed experts, citizen journalists, and conspiracy theorists – people like Eric Garland, Claude Taylor, Seth Abramson and Louise Mensch". There is no "EITHER" or "OR" in the source. If you wish to discuss the content dispute, I suggest you do it on the article talk page, not user talk pages.I have not threatened you in any way; I pointed out that your edit summary was way out of line. Calling well-sourced edits "vandalism" is not tolerated here: civility is one of five pillars and it is not okay to make baseless accusations.Since all your mainspace edits are to Abramson's bio, I suggest you read and heed the essay about single-purpose accounts. Happy editing, Politrukki (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you.

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Telmo6T. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Seth Abramson, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Fences &amp;  Windows  16:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * All your editing, since October 2019, has been to Abramson's biography. You have reverted other editor with incorrect claims of vandalism, to remove critical commentary about him. You seem to be promoting his publications. You have not used edit summaries to explain your edits. If this continues, you may be selectively blocked from editing this article. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)