User talk:Carndu77

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. 107.77.195.7 (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Carndu77. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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 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. 107.77.195.7 (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

Hello, I'm Jessicapierce. I noticed that you recently removed content from David Haigh without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jessicapierce (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Jessicapierce. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Zakia Hakki have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Jessicapierce (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Please clearly disclose your connection to David Haigh

Hello Carndu77. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to David Haigh, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Carndu77. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Carndu77|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Melcous (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Melcous. Thank you for your message. We have written on your talk page. We are not paid or otherwise and have no COI. We note that on review of your page this is something you state on many pages you edit. We note that you seemingly reverse any edit on the page even where they have been sourced, any addition that would show Mr Hiagh positively is also removed. Yor descriptions as to why you continually negatively and inaccurently edit this page are inaccurate and untruthful. Further you have seemingly libelled the subject You have done this multiple times to multiple editors and then seemingly sought to accuse all the editors of COI. It's clear that perhaps this is you that has COI. Can you confirm what your specific interest and COI is is in this subject.Carndu77 (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you please explain who the "we" you are talking about here is? Accounts can only be used by one single editor. There have been multiple single purpose and apparent conflict of interest editors editing the article in the past, and you are another editor who has focused almost exclusively on editing this one article, and made almost identical changes to those other editors. You are welcome to look at my editing history and you will see that I have edited many, many articles not just this one, and as I have already stated on the talk page, I have no connection or conflict with this subject nor have I ever been paid to edit here. Your accusations that I have "continually negatively and inaccurately" edited the article do not stand up to scrutiny - I have edited it according to wikipedia guidelines and the sources found. My most recent edits did not in fact change much content at all, but removed duplicated content and unnecessary headings. Please take the time to read the edit summaries made and understand the issues involved rather than throwing around words like 'libel' and 'criminal offence' (see WP:NLT). Melcous (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Melcous, Your response once again avoids answering the specific points. I am happy to use yours and answer your points directly. We means me. Im just used to writing for my day job using "we". Odd that you pick up on that yet continually vandalise this page. Why is that please? In relation to a single subject, well that will now change as your biased editing style has now inspired me to ensure that wiki isn't used in the manner in which you appear to be using it. I hope i am wrong but it seems to me clear that you have some form of bias against the subject. The edits to this page and the speed in which you overturn ANY edit shows bias. I can and will adress each and eve point. You will have to bear with me as i am learning all the various syntax. As I am not a paid editor nor a PR firm. I have read all of your edit comments and many are inaccurate. So to start perhaps you can explain in detail and without a general repose why you removed a line as to where the subject was born, the information is relevant to the article is verified. Indeed your edit now looks like homophobia as the section now simply talks about mr Haigh's sexuality and nothing more. It is not understand why you would do that and how that is in line with wikipedia policies.

You state you removed unnecessary titles that is not correct. You simply deleted vast chunks of sourced information. Please could you explain that? By each fact and verified source you deleted? The common thread appears to be anything that would show mr highs work in a positive light is deleted by you .

As one of the many example of your Bias. You removed all early life content about Mr Haigh. This was simple and fully sourced. You did this multiple times removing numerous edits by various editors or a long period.

Another example your removed any and all references to Mr Hiagh representing Sheikha Latifa. You seem to have done this over and over again. Why is that please?

It is normal practice to include place of birth and family and spouse details. Yet you repeatedly delete them so that the early and family life section of Mr Haigh is simple a statement about sexuality, and written in a negative way. Are you Homophobic, are you seeking to discriminate against Mr Haigh on these are others grounds. This is a criminal offence. It is also noted that any edits setting out the LGTB activism of Mr Haigh us generally deleted by you

An example of the normal writing is on all of the pages you create for yourself, again repeated are you a paid editor?

On your created page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemeri_Murray you wrote the below. Yet you delete any editors similar writing on Mr Haigh page. Please explain specifically why.

"Murray was born in Adelaide.[1] She graduated from the University of Adelaide in Law in 1953 and Arts in 1954, studying piano at the Elder Conservatorium of Music.[2][3]"Carndu77 (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Apparent COI / Vandalism / Homophobic editing by User Melcous of David Haigh

Dear Melcous,

We have created a separate header here and will number the edits.

Edit 2 Carndu77 (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC) I refer to your repeated removal of the change to the page that relate to 1. Mr Haigh was convicted of breach of trust and not Fraud. Mr Haigh was then pardoned 2. Mr Haigh Was acquitted of Twitter slander. It is noted that despite repeated editors correcting the page on this point and despite later in the page it stating this. You seem it correct to wrongly summarise that Mr Haigh was convicted of fraud when he was not. This is libel and against the policies of WIKI. For your reference here is a source that delays with the conviction. You will note in that source there is a statement issued by the DIFC Court noting that it was a breach of trust conviction, noting that he was acquitted of Twitter slander and noting that the court made an error in a previous statement, which accused him of fraud. There it is not accurate for you to state that he served 22 months for Fraud. He was held in detention for 15 months for breach of trust and 5 for twitter slander of which as per the source he was acquitted. Further said source also states that he won the appeal. I presume that as this is clearly sourced and it clearly shows your repeated edits and revisions on this point, which are unsourced, are untrue that you will stop reversion accurate edits with false edit summaries. Please now revert these changes. Further please could you indicate how I raise a dispute on this and have an independent editor or group review this article and any others that you have edited in a similar manner. Having now gone back though the edits you have made it appears they are in breach of wiki policy. Finally as it may well be libellous can you advise how we report this to Wikipedia please

My talk page

I asked you to discuss your edits on the article's talk page. An editor is allowed to remove whatever they want from their own talk page, as I did with your edit, and it is not ok for you to revert someone's editing of their own talk page. I have removed all your edits from my talk page, because as I said in my edit summary I do not wish to engage with you there. Discuss the article on the article's talk page and comment on content, not editors. Melcous (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

As this is your talk page, you are free to delete any messages here at any time, which is taken as a sign that you have read them. The key thing is that discussion about article content takes place on the talk page of the relevant article, comments should focus on content, based on the provision of reliable sources, and the goal is reaching consensus among editors. Melcous (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Haigh; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Melcous (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)