User talk:WikiRecontributer47

This page was last edited by Legobot (talk | contribs) 19 months ago. (Update timer)

This user has asked for Wikipedians to give her feedback at an editor review. You may comment on her edits at Wikipedia:Editor review/WikiRecontributer47.

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WikiRecontributer47.

Archives

Archive 1

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

Talkback

Hello, WikiRecontributer47. You have new messages at Smartse's talk page.
Message added 19:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may 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) 00:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Davenport

Please do not delete sourced content without explanation. You should never seek to change direct quotes, as that is a form of falsification. Also, if you have any connection with the article's subject, you should not be editing the article as you would have a serious conflict of interest. Prioryman (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, WikiRecontributer47. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, WikiRecontributer47. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your failure to engage

You've been warned multiple times about your conflict of interest in editing articles relating to your own and rival companies. If you do not desist, I will block you for disruptive editing. Please do not remove warnings from your talk page. Deb (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing War

User:Deb As already stated, I think that the fact that you are engaged in an edit war with me on various other pages may be worthy of mention here. Some might think that your desire to place COI on all pages that I recently created might be motivated by that. If not, please give your reasons - I can see you have been trying to encourage others that I have a close connection with certain persons whose articles I edit, please add your arguments to it. How can I be connected to them? --Wikirecontributer47 (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you do not understand what an edit war is. Deb (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deb You are clearly in an editing war with me and I can see that you have been making unfounded allegations against me and even gone as far as threatening me. Please add your arguments as to an IT person connected with barristers just because of their constant use of [category:barristers]]. If you could possibly lend a hand here, that would be fantastic, as I'm a bit stumped. All the best, Wikirecontributer47 (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A sockpuppet enquiry in 2010 concluded that you were the same person as User:AlexKing321, even though you continued to claim you were not. You responded that "I have gone public and now make contributions only from current account. Sarah x" and yet in October of this year, your user page read "Comments or questions about what I have done are welcome, or if you notice some blunder I have made, please tell me. Anna". If your expertise is in software, why are you interested only in editing articles about lawyers? Deb (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing war & unfounded accusations

Deb What is your rationale for accusing an IT person of working for religious, political, and legal organisations which I make contributions about? Please support your argument as it can be clearly seen from my editing activity and my website that I work in IT, withinterest in current affairs. I contribute to Wikipedia on various topics, including religion, millitary, politics, governance and entertainment. Your entire argument about my involvement with certain "high ranking" lawyers, politicians or religious people whose articles I contribute to needs to be reconsidered. I saw that you have been criticized before for placing similar notices and for other matters; As you're a better judge of these things, I'll leave it to you. At the moment you have no grounds for engaging in an editing war with me and need to reconsider your accusations. User:WikiRecontributer47 (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked your last 500 article edits. All of them have been about lawyers or legal firms. Deb (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

baseless accusations

Deb If you checked my last 500 edits you must have seen that I have created articles about various religious leaders including Barry Marcus and Marco Visconti who are not political leaders or high ranking lawyers. Explain your rationale behind your accusations of an IT person having a personal involvement with those leaders and your baseless accusations of IT consultants working for high ranking individuals in law, millitary or politics based on one’s contributions to their articles on Wikipedia.User:WikiRecontributer47 (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC

These were not in your last 500 edits or even in your last 1000 edits. Deb (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale you provided for using COI notice on my recently edited articles may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia as you base your argument on your unfounded allegations simply because you do not want to aknowledge the fact that an IT consultant can have interest in current affairs, including law, religion, politics and in high ranking individuals who are in a public eye.User:WikiRecontributer47 (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you prefer a voluntary topic ban or a compulsory one? Deb (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deb You should just aknowledge your mistake and apologise for placing baseless COIs and engaging in an editing war with me. (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way that someone who shows such a poor command of English on her talk page has written an article like Jonathan Laidlaw. I believe that someone else is supplying you with the wording for these articles and telling you which ones to edit. Probably the person whose ID you have taken on. Deb (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

I’m used to anti-Jewish and racist remarks as well as haterate towards foreigners but since when being a foreigner is a crime? My background and my political views are irrelevant to my Wikipedia contributions. I think you should find another place where you can campaign for nationalism, perhaps together with your associates who are helping you to run this nationalist campaign.User:Wikirecontributer47 (talk)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Deb (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, WikiRecontributer47. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Message added 22:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

WikiRecontributer47 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not been taking legal action or making legal treats however allegations of me having anything to do with anybody whose articles I contribute to are simply unfounded. WikiRecontributer47 23:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"I have complained about this person's actions to the police." - That's considered a legal threat. It's meant to have a chilling effect on editors you disagree with. While you are of course welcome to get the authorities involved, you are not welcome to edit Wikipedia at the same time. Huon (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

FYI

Trolling is not an offence in the UK anyway. I am reasonably well informed on UK tort law as it relates to computer use, and it is hard to see what offence you could even credibly allege in respect of this dispute. Guy (Help!) 13:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Peter Testar

Hello, WikiRecontributer47,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Peter Testar should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Testar .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

^{Atsme📞📧} 02:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sock-puppet

Of Julian Malins or the like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.189.156 (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

As you have been blocked, you won't reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.189.156 (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]