User talk:Upsetterfc

Desmond Napoles
I do not think this is an attack page although it might be questionable that it is included in Wikipedia. Please nominate it for AfD if you believe it should be deleted. You can make your argument there and if other editors agree with you and put forth good arguments, it might be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , please check out Articles for deletion/Desmond Napoles. The solution is for experienced editors to monitor the article for neutrality and rigorously exclude extremist unreliable sources. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

A belated welcome!


Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Upsetterfc. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place help me on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Upsetterfc. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Desmond Napoles, 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, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * 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 must 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 WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I am his legal guardian. This page was not posted by me but is being used to report factually incorrect information that violates the libelous and copyright rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upsetterfc (talk • contribs) 02:15, 02 January 2019 (UTC)

Article subject FAQ
Hi, this may be helpful: FAQ/Article subjects. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Message by ToBeFree
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Desmond Napoles. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

''You asked for "escalation" -- this may not be what you had been looking for, but this warning message is the escalation. Sorry for that.'' ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I will request removal via arbitration or legal action if Controversy section is added again. It is libelous, factually incorrect, uses biased sourcing and cites a Youtube video using sources without copyright permission.Upsetterfc (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Message by Vermont
Original heading: "Edit warring". Sections merged, heading level increased. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello. You appear to be edit warring on Desmond Napoles. Please discuss on the article's talk page rather than continuing to revert. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I will request removal via arbitration or legal action if Controversy section is added again. It is libelous, factually incorrect, uses biased sourcing and cites a Youtube video using sources without copyright permission.Upsetterfc (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2019 (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. The thread is Desmond Napoles. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Please, avoid legal threats
Your recent edits to Special:Diff/876394313 could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I am waiting for action on this matter. The materials being used are sourced from an anti-LGBT source (www.westernjournal.com) and a dleiberately doctored video on Youtube. None of which are factually correct. There are no legitimate sources to support or refute claims. We have not responded to story.Upsetterfc (talk)
 * It is not a doctored video, but it does not warrant inclusion in the article. Vermont (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It is doctored. There is no drug use and the source material is not cited.Upsetterfc (talk)


 * Regarding the potential legal threats: ✅ per Special:Diff/876398911. Thank you very much for your understanding and patience. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Potential legal threat and escalation request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)