Hello, DallasBusiness. We
welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things
you have written about in the page
Vistage International, you may have a
conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI 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 COI 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. Brad v 03:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Please stop adding
unsourced content, as you did on
Vistage International. This violates
Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs) 05:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Vistage International 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Hi. I strongly recommend you self-revert your last edit – you've breached
WP:3RR already, which is generally considered a bright-line rule.
Kevin (aka
L235 ·
t ·
c) 05:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
There were about 10 entries in the Visage listing. I believe all are well sourced and have asked many times for the other editors to explain why they feel otherwise. Instead, the edits eliminate all information except for 2 lines about the company. I accepted removal of 7 of the entries which I still feel are relevant and well sourced (for example, that there was a company name change, and when the company changed ownership). I then explained to the other editors that I did feel these were well sourced and why and invited feedback or revisions instead of wholesale deletion. I continue to believe all information posted is sourced to either public government sites or stories on extremely trustworthy media sites. I continue to invite edits (but not wholesale deletions) or specific feedback on sourcing.
- Sorry, one key concept from the policy is that even if you're correct, you can't edit war – you need to discuss on the article talk page and try to find consensus there. See WP:EW. I once again strongly urge you to voluntarily revert your last edit – otherwise, I or another administrator may consider a block in accordance with WP:3RR. As to the correctness of your edits, I haven't looked too carefully, but helpful links include WP:RS and particularly WP:PRIMARY, which discusses the use of primary sources (such as court records) to source articles – high levels of caution are appropriate when using primary sources rather than reliable secondary sources. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree - read my comments on the other editors pages. I did go with many of their edits and asked for feedback on others. I am actually awaiting their responses.
- Hi DallasBusiness – I'll say this one more time. You reverted other editors four times in (much) less than 24 hours on that article, which no one else has done. Only partially reverting still counts. Regardless of the correctness of your edits, that can get you blocked very quickly – I again strongly urge you to self-revert your last edit, lest an administrator block you from editing Wikipedia. I appreciate that you may be frustrated with this, but the rule was instituted to address situations where all parties believe they're clearly right and others are wrong. Finally, remember, the burden of demonstrating that information should be included rests with editors who add content, not those who challenge it. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
|
Hi DallasBusiness! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC) |
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:DallasBusiness reported by User:Web SourceContent (Result: ). Thank you.
Source Content Self-Maker (
talk) 17:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, DallasBusiness. We
welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things
you have written about in the page
Vistage International, you may have a
conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI 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 COI 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. Brad v 03:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Please stop adding
unsourced content, as you did on
Vistage International. This violates
Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs) 05:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Vistage International 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Hi. I strongly recommend you self-revert your last edit – you've breached
WP:3RR already, which is generally considered a bright-line rule.
Kevin (aka
L235 ·
t ·
c) 05:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
There were about 10 entries in the Visage listing. I believe all are well sourced and have asked many times for the other editors to explain why they feel otherwise. Instead, the edits eliminate all information except for 2 lines about the company. I accepted removal of 7 of the entries which I still feel are relevant and well sourced (for example, that there was a company name change, and when the company changed ownership). I then explained to the other editors that I did feel these were well sourced and why and invited feedback or revisions instead of wholesale deletion. I continue to believe all information posted is sourced to either public government sites or stories on extremely trustworthy media sites. I continue to invite edits (but not wholesale deletions) or specific feedback on sourcing.
- Sorry, one key concept from the policy is that even if you're correct, you can't edit war – you need to discuss on the article talk page and try to find consensus there. See WP:EW. I once again strongly urge you to voluntarily revert your last edit – otherwise, I or another administrator may consider a block in accordance with WP:3RR. As to the correctness of your edits, I haven't looked too carefully, but helpful links include WP:RS and particularly WP:PRIMARY, which discusses the use of primary sources (such as court records) to source articles – high levels of caution are appropriate when using primary sources rather than reliable secondary sources. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree - read my comments on the other editors pages. I did go with many of their edits and asked for feedback on others. I am actually awaiting their responses.
- Hi DallasBusiness – I'll say this one more time. You reverted other editors four times in (much) less than 24 hours on that article, which no one else has done. Only partially reverting still counts. Regardless of the correctness of your edits, that can get you blocked very quickly – I again strongly urge you to self-revert your last edit, lest an administrator block you from editing Wikipedia. I appreciate that you may be frustrated with this, but the rule was instituted to address situations where all parties believe they're clearly right and others are wrong. Finally, remember, the burden of demonstrating that information should be included rests with editors who add content, not those who challenge it. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
|
|
Hi DallasBusiness! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC) |
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:DallasBusiness reported by User:Web SourceContent (Result: ). Thank you.
Source Content Self-Maker (
talk) 17:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)