Hi Lori keep the fight for justice going! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsonRules ( talk • contribs) 00:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello Lorifredrics. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things
you have written about in the article
Kingston University, you may have a
conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 15:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
If you believe that Sabrina Anver is notable then you should create an article on them. Because without the article there is no way you are going to be able to list them as an Notable Alumni of Kingston University as there is community consensus on that point. Mtking ( talk) 08:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted your addition about Legal Controversies at Kingston University as you clearly have a WP:COI you need to get agreement for ALL changes made you wish to make to this article agreed at the talk page. Mtking ( talk) 00:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
There are no factual issues here that are debatable. All matters are reported as published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorifredrics ( talk • contribs)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Kingston University. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Mtking ( talk) 00:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I am working towards consensus via the talk page, but the article edit should remain until a consensus is reached -- it's not all that complex an edit to warrant preventing it from going "live" until it is resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorifredrics ( talk • contribs)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Kingston University and WP:COI SPA. Thank you.. Mtking ( talk) 00:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
15:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, you're right. I need to remember to do that. I did the last time I edited.
Would you please consider making a statement on your user page regarding your connection to Howard Fredrics and Kingston University (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Declaring an interest) Mtking ( talk) 00:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Lori, I hate to pile on over everything else you're dealing with, but there's now a report at the admins' noticeboard for edit wars. You have a chance to explain your reasons for violating WP:3RR, though I'll warn you that the 3 revert restriction is a "bright line rule" and just about anyone who has broken it is almost always blocked, although since you weren't warned that your next edit would be violating 3RR, an admin might be lenient and leave you with a warning. If you are blocked, since it would be your first block, it would probably only be for 24 hours. But anyway, I wanted to let you know about it, the editor who reported you forgot to do so. Thanks. -- Atama 頭 23:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello Lorifredrics,
This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the
Edit warring policy at the
Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the
noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them.
~
NekoBot (
MeowTalk)
07:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive?
Report it!)
In discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, a consensus has been reached to enact the following edit restriction:
User:Lorifredrics is banned indefinitely from editing Kingston University and Peter Scott (educationalist) (Talk pages exempt) and from any page, on any matter relating to Howard Fredric's grievances with Kingston University broadly construed (again Talk page exempt).
The discussion, together with the resulting decision, can be seen here. Further information relating to bans is available at Wikipedia:Banning policy. JamesBWatson ( talk) 07:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
You are suspected of
sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the
notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lorifredrics. Thank you.
JamesBWatson (
talk)
12:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
How should you, Bentheadvocate and I work together to make sure the wiki web page on Kingston University best reports on the issues at the place, rather than have them air-brushed out by reputation managers ? KingsonRules ( talk) 02:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Re this -- don't even think about it. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 21:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Then do "put your money where your mouth is" and get the draft to a stage where it is ready to go to WP:DRV, the longer you leave it the more likely it is to look like a WP:FAKEARTICLE. Mt king (edits) 03:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, from the position of having a NPOV, it was clearly an attempt at intimidation. it was possible that it was meant as humour, but considering this is Wikipedia that seems more hopeful than realistic! Anyway, just thought, having read the entire exchange, a neutral view might be worth adding. As you stated, there's nothing wrong with creating the article as long as the end version meets the guidelines, even if the subject IS your husband.
Guy.shrimpton (
talk)
16:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Lori,
I have Blanked your user page as I believe it is in violation of a number of WP Policies and guidelines, specifically WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTWEBHOST/ WP:NOTBLOG, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:BLP. I have done this as an alternative to takeing it to WP:MfD where I believe it would have been deleted.
My understanding of your topic ban, means that you are unable to revet my blanking, I will revert it if you ask me to on my talk page, however I will also list it at WP:MfD.
If any of your talk page watchers (those in good standing) fell I have got this wrong, then please fell free to revert. Mt king (edits) 07:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I have restored some portion of the contents of the userpage as she expresses her intention is to declare a conflict of interest. That seems valid. The rest of it is WP:SOAP so i kept it removed. If you have any problem with this, Lori, let me know. Metal.lunchbox ( talk) 06:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
As the admin who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Fredrics, I was asked by Mtking ( talk) to advise you about your draft article at User:Lorifredrics/Howard Fredrics. That was on 28 July, and I apologise profusely for the delay in doing this - it slipped off my to-do list somehow and I have only been reminded because his message is about to scroll off my talk page.
In my opinion, the article is unlikely to be accepted, and my personal advice is to let the matter drop, but if you want to proceed that is the way to go about it. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 21:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Lori keep the fight for justice going! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsonRules ( talk • contribs) 00:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello Lorifredrics. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things
you have written about in the article
Kingston University, you may have a
conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 15:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
If you believe that Sabrina Anver is notable then you should create an article on them. Because without the article there is no way you are going to be able to list them as an Notable Alumni of Kingston University as there is community consensus on that point. Mtking ( talk) 08:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted your addition about Legal Controversies at Kingston University as you clearly have a WP:COI you need to get agreement for ALL changes made you wish to make to this article agreed at the talk page. Mtking ( talk) 00:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
There are no factual issues here that are debatable. All matters are reported as published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorifredrics ( talk • contribs)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Kingston University. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Mtking ( talk) 00:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I am working towards consensus via the talk page, but the article edit should remain until a consensus is reached -- it's not all that complex an edit to warrant preventing it from going "live" until it is resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorifredrics ( talk • contribs)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Kingston University and WP:COI SPA. Thank you.. Mtking ( talk) 00:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
15:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, you're right. I need to remember to do that. I did the last time I edited.
Would you please consider making a statement on your user page regarding your connection to Howard Fredrics and Kingston University (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Declaring an interest) Mtking ( talk) 00:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Lori, I hate to pile on over everything else you're dealing with, but there's now a report at the admins' noticeboard for edit wars. You have a chance to explain your reasons for violating WP:3RR, though I'll warn you that the 3 revert restriction is a "bright line rule" and just about anyone who has broken it is almost always blocked, although since you weren't warned that your next edit would be violating 3RR, an admin might be lenient and leave you with a warning. If you are blocked, since it would be your first block, it would probably only be for 24 hours. But anyway, I wanted to let you know about it, the editor who reported you forgot to do so. Thanks. -- Atama 頭 23:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello Lorifredrics,
This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the
Edit warring policy at the
Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the
noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them.
~
NekoBot (
MeowTalk)
07:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive?
Report it!)
In discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, a consensus has been reached to enact the following edit restriction:
User:Lorifredrics is banned indefinitely from editing Kingston University and Peter Scott (educationalist) (Talk pages exempt) and from any page, on any matter relating to Howard Fredric's grievances with Kingston University broadly construed (again Talk page exempt).
The discussion, together with the resulting decision, can be seen here. Further information relating to bans is available at Wikipedia:Banning policy. JamesBWatson ( talk) 07:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
You are suspected of
sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the
notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lorifredrics. Thank you.
JamesBWatson (
talk)
12:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
How should you, Bentheadvocate and I work together to make sure the wiki web page on Kingston University best reports on the issues at the place, rather than have them air-brushed out by reputation managers ? KingsonRules ( talk) 02:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Re this -- don't even think about it. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 21:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Then do "put your money where your mouth is" and get the draft to a stage where it is ready to go to WP:DRV, the longer you leave it the more likely it is to look like a WP:FAKEARTICLE. Mt king (edits) 03:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, from the position of having a NPOV, it was clearly an attempt at intimidation. it was possible that it was meant as humour, but considering this is Wikipedia that seems more hopeful than realistic! Anyway, just thought, having read the entire exchange, a neutral view might be worth adding. As you stated, there's nothing wrong with creating the article as long as the end version meets the guidelines, even if the subject IS your husband.
Guy.shrimpton (
talk)
16:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Lori,
I have Blanked your user page as I believe it is in violation of a number of WP Policies and guidelines, specifically WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTWEBHOST/ WP:NOTBLOG, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:BLP. I have done this as an alternative to takeing it to WP:MfD where I believe it would have been deleted.
My understanding of your topic ban, means that you are unable to revet my blanking, I will revert it if you ask me to on my talk page, however I will also list it at WP:MfD.
If any of your talk page watchers (those in good standing) fell I have got this wrong, then please fell free to revert. Mt king (edits) 07:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I have restored some portion of the contents of the userpage as she expresses her intention is to declare a conflict of interest. That seems valid. The rest of it is WP:SOAP so i kept it removed. If you have any problem with this, Lori, let me know. Metal.lunchbox ( talk) 06:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
As the admin who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Fredrics, I was asked by Mtking ( talk) to advise you about your draft article at User:Lorifredrics/Howard Fredrics. That was on 28 July, and I apologise profusely for the delay in doing this - it slipped off my to-do list somehow and I have only been reminded because his message is about to scroll off my talk page.
In my opinion, the article is unlikely to be accepted, and my personal advice is to let the matter drop, but if you want to proceed that is the way to go about it. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 21:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)