|
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Patricia Cloherty. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Nancy
talk
12:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Please do not
delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at
User talk:Nancy. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be
vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Nancy
talk
10:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Nancy:
It appears that another editor is vandalising the contributions to the page on Patricia Cloherty but deleting public information. I suspect that this is a PR company trying to hide factual information. It would make sense to include all verifiable information in the article rather than deleting other editor's contributions.
For the record, Patricia Cloherty is a venture capitalist, but she is not recognized as an internationally known venture capitalist. She was recently removed from her position at Delta Private Equity as noted in Private Equity Online (April 22, 2009) by a takeover from United Financial Group. It appears that the other editor (Lilu) is attempting to promote the subject rather than provide factual information.
I suggest including both texts as long as the information provided is factual and not subjective in content.
Happy225 ( talk) 08:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Happy225
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without
citing a
reliable source, as you did to
Patricia Cloherty, is not consistent with our policy of
verifiability. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with
Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
KillerChihuahua
?!?
Advice
15:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, there seems to be a dispute on the Patricia Cloherty in which you are involved in. I looked at the article talk page and the edit summary, and it seems that you are replacing sourced content with unverified content. Of course you are welcome to add the content if it meets Wikipedia's guidelines. However, there were no sources provided for the content you added. As a result, your content keeps getting reverted. If you are able to find acceptable sources for the content, please do so and add it to the article. Thanks. If you have any questions, please message me on my talk page. Netalarm 16:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without
citing a
reliable source, as you did to
Patricia Cloherty, is not consistent with our policy of
verifiability. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with
Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Netalarm
01:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted the changes you made to Patricia Cloherty's bio. Please see the discussion page for details. Please make sure your edits meet wiki guidelines. Thanks. Cgettings ( talk) 01:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to
Patricia Cloherty, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have been ignoring attempts to discuss with you your rewriting of this article, removing sourced content and adding unsourced content. Cease this. Either follow our policies and work with others, or you may be sanctioned. This could include article or topic banning, blocking, or banning.
KillerChihuahua
?!?
Advice
13:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Happy225, you're free to add that information when you find reliable sources that support the information you're adding. Thanks. Netalarm 17:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Please do not undo major re-writes by manual copy-pasting an old version of an article, as you did at Patricia Cloherty. Your edits seem to be aimed at re-inserting unsourced material that frames the subject in a negative light. This is clearly disruptive. You also reinstated an old AFD notice and marked your edit as m (minor). Both are not appropriate. You have been blocked for similar activity in the past and may be blocked again if you continue. Stalwart 111 10:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Reverting unsourced claims in a biography of a living person is not vandalism. Adding unsourced information to a biography can be vandalism - please stop doing so. You have been warned several times already and have been blocked at least once. Information you add must be verified by reliable sources and must not be original research. Your want to turn the article into an attack page is disruptive and frankly nonsensical. Please discuss any edits you wish to make on the article talk page. Stalwart 111 11:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stalwart 111 22:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I have found yet another reference to Cloherty's correct age (which is 70 years old and not 69 as you keep insisting)...please refer to http://www.dpep.ru/eng/press-room/publications/news-current.wbp?content_type=print&news-article-id=663A27A9-8FF0-4AC0-A322-68C3508D67B9 I would appreciate it if you would stop this ridiculous exchange and include my edit. FYI, each person gets a year older ever year (even you). Have a nice day!
This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bearian ( talk) 15:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Hildi Santo-Tomas.
Ronhjones
(Talk)
00:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
|
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Patricia Cloherty. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Nancy
talk
12:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Please do not
delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at
User talk:Nancy. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be
vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Nancy
talk
10:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Nancy:
It appears that another editor is vandalising the contributions to the page on Patricia Cloherty but deleting public information. I suspect that this is a PR company trying to hide factual information. It would make sense to include all verifiable information in the article rather than deleting other editor's contributions.
For the record, Patricia Cloherty is a venture capitalist, but she is not recognized as an internationally known venture capitalist. She was recently removed from her position at Delta Private Equity as noted in Private Equity Online (April 22, 2009) by a takeover from United Financial Group. It appears that the other editor (Lilu) is attempting to promote the subject rather than provide factual information.
I suggest including both texts as long as the information provided is factual and not subjective in content.
Happy225 ( talk) 08:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Happy225
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without
citing a
reliable source, as you did to
Patricia Cloherty, is not consistent with our policy of
verifiability. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with
Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
KillerChihuahua
?!?
Advice
15:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, there seems to be a dispute on the Patricia Cloherty in which you are involved in. I looked at the article talk page and the edit summary, and it seems that you are replacing sourced content with unverified content. Of course you are welcome to add the content if it meets Wikipedia's guidelines. However, there were no sources provided for the content you added. As a result, your content keeps getting reverted. If you are able to find acceptable sources for the content, please do so and add it to the article. Thanks. If you have any questions, please message me on my talk page. Netalarm 16:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without
citing a
reliable source, as you did to
Patricia Cloherty, is not consistent with our policy of
verifiability. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with
Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Netalarm
01:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted the changes you made to Patricia Cloherty's bio. Please see the discussion page for details. Please make sure your edits meet wiki guidelines. Thanks. Cgettings ( talk) 01:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to
Patricia Cloherty, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have been ignoring attempts to discuss with you your rewriting of this article, removing sourced content and adding unsourced content. Cease this. Either follow our policies and work with others, or you may be sanctioned. This could include article or topic banning, blocking, or banning.
KillerChihuahua
?!?
Advice
13:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Happy225, you're free to add that information when you find reliable sources that support the information you're adding. Thanks. Netalarm 17:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Please do not undo major re-writes by manual copy-pasting an old version of an article, as you did at Patricia Cloherty. Your edits seem to be aimed at re-inserting unsourced material that frames the subject in a negative light. This is clearly disruptive. You also reinstated an old AFD notice and marked your edit as m (minor). Both are not appropriate. You have been blocked for similar activity in the past and may be blocked again if you continue. Stalwart 111 10:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Reverting unsourced claims in a biography of a living person is not vandalism. Adding unsourced information to a biography can be vandalism - please stop doing so. You have been warned several times already and have been blocked at least once. Information you add must be verified by reliable sources and must not be original research. Your want to turn the article into an attack page is disruptive and frankly nonsensical. Please discuss any edits you wish to make on the article talk page. Stalwart 111 11:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stalwart 111 22:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I have found yet another reference to Cloherty's correct age (which is 70 years old and not 69 as you keep insisting)...please refer to http://www.dpep.ru/eng/press-room/publications/news-current.wbp?content_type=print&news-article-id=663A27A9-8FF0-4AC0-A322-68C3508D67B9 I would appreciate it if you would stop this ridiculous exchange and include my edit. FYI, each person gets a year older ever year (even you). Have a nice day!
This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bearian ( talk) 15:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Hildi Santo-Tomas.
Ronhjones
(Talk)
00:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)