User talk:WmConq

July 2015
Hello, I'm Denisarona. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Barbara Hewson without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Denisarona (talk) 07:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Barbara Hewson, 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. Denisarona (talk) 07:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Barbara Hewson, you may be blocked from editing. Denisarona (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Barbara Hewson. North America1000 07:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent vandalism, as you did at Barbara Hewson. You have continuously removed content without explaining why using an edit summary, which constitutes vandalism as per WP:VANDTYPES. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. North America1000 07:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
Hello, I'm RegistryKey. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Barbara Hewson, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! RegistryKey(RegEdit) 03:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Writer and journalist


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Writer and journalist requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. HapHaxion (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
Hello, I'm Quinton Feldberg. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Barbara Hewson— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Barbara Hewson
Hello. I note that your edits on Wikipedia relate almost exclusively to Barbara Hewson. Please can I ask you to just take a moment to refresh yourself on Wikipedia policies on conflicts of interest. Thank you. --Legis (talk - contribs) 12:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Legis can I ask you to take a moment to refresh yourself on the rules relating to living subjects and in particular the prohibition on libellous content? This matter has now been escalated to Wikipedia directly.


 * Absolutely. I am particularly conscious of the requirements of WP:BLPSOURCES.  I accept that these are sensitive issues here, but it seems to me that the complaints are well sourced and documented from multiple independent sources.  However, I am concerned that the explanations that you have given for reverting do not seem to appear in any publicly available sources, and appear to be matters which, if true, would only be known to Ms Hewson or her legal advisors.  Hence the concerns which I expressed about WP:COI.  I have a sense that we are not going to reach agreement on these issues, so I am proposing we ask an admin to review and mediate on this issue.  Do you agree? --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring - Barbara Hewson
Your recent editing history 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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.

Please can you comment on the points made on the talk page re edit warring over the WP:COI allegations, and concerns about bad-faith editing on the paragraph about police intervention based upon the Mehul Desai. I'd like to take one last attempt to talk this out before enlisting an admin to mediate on the issue. Thank you. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, we just need to draw a line under this. I have made a report and asked that an Admin review and make a determination on the edit warring, setting out the points I made on the Talk Page (Talk:Barbara_Hewson).

Legis you have removed large chunks of this entry yourself so you are hardly in position to complain about editing.

This matter will be taken further and the administrator will be asked to provide an address for correspondence.

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3
Please see the report at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You may respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your statement here where you ask about an 'address for correspondence' might be viewed as being a legal threat. Consider striking through or removing that sentence. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing objectionable about that. The Wikipedia Guidelines make it clear that libellous material about living subjects is unacceptable.
 * WmConq, that may be true, but precisely what is and what isn't libellous is a matter of discussion. In the meantime, it is very obvious to me that you have an undeclared conflict of interest with the subject. I'm fine with you protecting the subject, but you'll have to do so from within our guidelines: edit warring is not acceptable. There are other, better ways--please see WP:BLPEDIT. Few people are more hawkish on BLPs than I am, and I am looking at the article again, but you must play within the rules or you might be blocked yourself, and then you're even farther away from where you want to be. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Barbara Hewson is covered by discretionary sanctions
EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)