User talk:Chelmsford Correction

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Chelmsford Correction, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! creffett (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Chelmsford, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you think it is disruptive. "19th century" is much more idiomatic usage than "19 century". --Chelmsford Correction (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do not use th, st or rd in dates. Please stop Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 22:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case we would have to change "20th" to "20" in the same sentence as well, but I don't see why you think we shouldn't use "-th". --Chelmsford Correction (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note also that MOS:CENTURY seems to say we should use "-th". --Chelmsford Correction (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FlightTime, could you please link to the part of the MOS you're thinking of? I don't see anything wrong with "19th century," and as far as I can tell MOS:CENTURY also doesn't have any issues. I agree that th/rd/etc. shouldn't be used in day-of-the-month dates per MOS:DATESNO (e.g. "December 11th"), but I don't think that applies to centuries. creffett (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Someone is making it up, then reacting aggressively when challenged. The edit to in the late 19 and early 20th centuries is just wrong. They need to please stop. 2A01:4C8:2F:8F96:76:FDD:C90E:5B10 (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Chelmsford Correction. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Chelmsford, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest 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, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
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 are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed all this user's edits so far. They are not that many, so it did not take long. They are all good, sensible edits. I see no evidence at all of a COI and I think, FlightTime, that you need either to provide diffs for where you see a COI or even a potential COI, or to back down and apologize for getting it wrong. At the moment, as I see it, what you have done here is unacceptable. A read of WP:BITE wouldn't be a bad idea while you're at it. Thank you. 2A01:4C8:2F:8F96:76:FDD:C90E:5B10 (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am genuinely mystified as to what might have caused anyone to think I had a conflict of interest. I have not done anything to try to advertise or promote anything or anybody. My edits have been attempts to undo changes by others that seemed to me inappropriate. --Chelmsford Correction (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chelmsford Correction, it's probably because you edited Chelmsford and your username contains that word. That usually flags edits as potential COI, since we often see something like an account named "XYZCorp Marketing" editing the "XYZCorp" page. To be perfectly honest, that's why I sent you a welcome message - your edits were flagged as potential COI for that reason, I reviewed them and didn't see an issue, so I hit the welcome button instead of the warn for COI button. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That does make sense - my bad choice of username! Thanks for the explanation. --Chelmsford Correction (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]