User talk:Historyofpoetry

Dear "History,"

I'm reaching out to seek consensus on the Barrett Watten page. I am trying to avoid violating the NPOV standards, but am interested in adding factual and relevant information to this page. Is there any way you would be interested in finding such a consensus? --Stophidingbehind (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stophidingbehind: It's too late for you to start seeking consensus. You should now respond to the report at the edit warring noticeboard. General Ization ^Talk 16:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019[edit]

Your recent editing history at Barrett Watten shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. General Ization ^Talk 15:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I redacted your request on the Talk page. Please note that defamatory content is just as much a violation of BLP when it appears on a Talk page, even when reproduced in a request to remove it, as it is when it appears in an article. Please do not reproduce defamatory content you propose to remove on a Talk page, as it defeats the purpose of removing it from the article. General Ization ^Talk

Historyofpoetry, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Historyofpoetry! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

SarahSV ^(talk) 23:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest[edit]

Hi Historyofpoetry, several single-purpose accounts (SPAs) who were causing problems on the Barrett Watten page were blocked recently. Your account is also an SPA and today you seemed to accuse another editor of COI, even though she appears entirely uninvolved. I think it's only fair that Watten should be represented on the talk page, but you should make clear that that's what you're doing, if indeed that is what you're doing. Please read our conflict of interest guideline, particularly the section WP:COIDISCLOSE, which explains how to disclose a COI. If it applies to you, you can simply leave a note on your user page. Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 00:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]