User talk:Shakespeare21

September 2013[edit]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Patricia Cloherty. Thank you. Stalwart111 08:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Kirill Dmitriev. Thank you. Stalwart111 08:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Changes to text[edit]

On Patricia Cloherty - the lack of a reference for your changes was only part of the problem. A businessperson (or any person for that matter) can't be an "shareholder" in an "affair". Calling an issue an "affair" and then suggesting it was "controversial" is an obvious BLP issue, even with a source. If you're going to make a claim like that is needs to be very well sourced - the total opposite of the "source" you added from someone's home-made blog.

On Kirill Dmitriev - I reverted everything you removed and the line you're talking about was one minor part (which I'm happy to discuss). The issue, in case it wasn't obvious, was your unexplained removal of a whole section, reliably sourced to the Wall Street Journal.

Your edits to both articles are fairly obvious BLP policy violations - please don't make them again until you've discussed them in more detail on each article's talk page. Working out how to properly reference sources would be a good start, but I would start with some better sources. Stalwart111 23:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Dmitriev, the reference to the statement made in the text is not even mentioned in the reference so this was not properly referenced and should be removed entirely. I tried to update the biography with accurate information but you keep putting back in incorrect information for some reason. Have you read in full the references to the material?

It wasn't clear what you were objecting to - you removed two sourced statements. I replaced co-manager with a new source, and the other text as you didn't explain why you were deleting it. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI[edit]

Oh please! You're just edit-warring to introduce obviously unreliable sources so that you can claim a particular person has been involved in "controversy". You're about the 5th account/editor to have tried it in that article. Your campaign is old. So... Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stalwart111 09:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Patricia Cloherty shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why you consider federal testimony in a federal investigation to be unreliable sources. Are you kidding? I am a historian writing a book on these topics and it appears that you have not read the sourced material thoroughly. Otherwise, you would not have deleted my updates to Wikipedia. Can you please take a moment and actually read the references that support what I am updating. For some reason, you keep reverting back to the incorrect information which ultimately makes Wikipedia useless.

I have read you comment to Doug Weller and I appreciate it if you would include me in the discussion of the correct information. I am using information which is widely available on the internet and from other sources. Yes, Cloherty was involved in the controversial INSLAW affair, but there is not judgement being made. It is simply stating a fact which the business community is well aware of.

Regarding Dmitriev, the source which is linked to the statement is not accurate and does not support the statement. Please read the actual source...if it does not have anything to do with the statement made, then it is not properly referenced. Please open and read the references that support the published material....they clearly have nothing to do with the statements being made in the text unless you have imagining something which I am not seeing on my computer. May you please comment on this?

Invitation[edit]

Shakespeare21, I see your post above. It would be helpful if you took part in the discussion of this matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The particular discussion is here. Please sign your posts by adding four tildes, ~~~~, at the end, so we can tell who wrote what. Bishonen | talk 10:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Patricia Cloherty. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Stalwart111 15:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the user previously known as Happy225?[edit]

Hi. Some concern has been expressed that you might be the same person as the owner of the account Happy225, which hasn't had any activity for several months. Some of your activity (articles edited, types of edits) appear similar to the kinds of things Happy225 was doing before he/she stopped editing, and your account showed up shortly after Happy225 stopped editing.

If you are the same person as Happy225, I would be grateful if you could confirm this fact — in which case I'll go ahead and mark your old account as abandoned and turn it off. Wikipedia editors should normally use only one account, except for a limited number of recognized reasons.

I would also remind you that, if you are in fact the same person as Happy225, our rules for proper editor conduct apply to individuals, not to accounts. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about. This appears to be a bit of paranoia on the part of Stalwart.

Please read WP:QUACK. Stalwart111 21:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Patricia Cloherty. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Stalwart111 21:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. This applies to most of your article edits. Dougweller (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Patricia Cloherty. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Stalwart111 12:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a copyright violation....this article is available to the public on Private Equity International's website as well as Delta Private Equity's website (until the company was merged with UFG). I honestly do not understand why you constantly revert any editing that is made without first discussing it with me. This is public information and is relevant to the page. Shakespeare21 (talk)

These claims have been discussed extensively on Administrator's noticeboards, the BLP noticeboard, other noticeboards, and article and user talk pages. Consensus determined that highlighting a single line from a 4-page source, framing it in the negative despite that being contrary to the tone of the source and (as was the case the first few times it was included) adding that claim to the article lede was a breach of WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. The article was protected several times as a result of people trying to edit-war that specific claim into the article. Despite very, very obvious indications to the contrary, you claim not to have been involved in those discussions. That's fine, but it doesn't mean they didn't happen. Despite claiming not to have been involved in trying to edit-war those claims into the article the first time, you are trying to insert exactly the same claim (almost word-for-word), based on the same source. We'll all assume good faith, but we aren't idiots. Doing your best to look like a carbon copy of previous spammers isn't the best way to suggest you are not the same person. Besides which, I didn't even revert your last edit - your disruptive editing is just as transparent to others. Do yourself a favour, find a new obsession. Stalwart111 22:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you really understand what you are talking about. If Cloherty herself is quoted in the article, why would it be perceived that this is an attack on her (if she made the statement, then obviously she was merely stating a fact). This track record is not a reflection of Cloherty at all...it merely states a fact. Please use the talk page to discuss this issue before the constant reverting back and forth of an issue which is factual. Wikipedia depends on a number of editors to keep it current and informative. I have properly referenced this fact and will proceed with adding additional information in the article if that will make you happy. Shakespeare21 (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is in no way an acceptable source. Go to WP:RSN if you want to argue that it is, but trying to edit war it in will end badly for you. I was not aware of any of these discussions by the way, I just know a bad source when I see it. And the only thing that showed up in the reference section was the symbol ^. Dougweller (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this has been discussed at length and not just the issue in general - another anti-Cloherty editor tried to edit-war exactly the same claim into the article sourced to exactly the same two lines in exactly the same text. It is "negative" because you're extracting two lines about write-downs under Cloherty's stewardship from a four page document which is overwhelmingly positive. You're ascribing a tone to the source that simply doesn't exist. Selectively sourcing only disparaging claims from an article while ignoring the rest of the article is an obvious WP:WEIGHT violation. Again, you claim not to have any connection to previous editors with the same agenda despite using exactly the same lines from the same source to make the same claim (almost word-for-word; even down the the suggestion that it must be okay because the subject discussed it). "Current and informative" is a joke - you're edit-warring over a 5-year-old source. Please! Stalwart111 10:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a track that is quoted from the source a negative statement. There is absolutely nothing negative about this track record. If you understood private equity, which you clearly do not, most successful funds average 8 write-offs to 2 successful investments for every 10 investments made. This is normal. This fact is relevant in the biography because we are speaking about Russia and the private equity environment. I believe you have very little to keep your life busy (otherwise, you wouldn't be spending so much time bullying other editors). You appear to have some paranoia issues and I have to say that when you quote a published article, it is not a coincidence...it is merely fact. Shakespeare21 (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If at first you don't succeed, try a personal attack or two! LOL. Stalwart111 12:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have just proven my point....you suffer from paranoia. No one is attacking you...it is just a discussion on facts. I have seen many people who suffer from the same symptoms in middle age. Please, seek help for your issues and try to focus on facts rather than emotions. Shakespeare21 (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm. This is not a "discussion on facts" - it's a warning to an editor (you) that further disruptive editing will result in a block. You clearly just aren't getting it. Stalwart111 21:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation[edit]

"09:42, 14 November 2013 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page File:PEI Dec 05 Article on PMC.pdf (Copyright violation: If you are the copyright holder/author and/or have authorization to upload the file, email COM:OTRS"

If you upload this again without approval you will be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Your comments above are clearly a personal attack. Dougweller (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for repeated bad-faith disruptive edits and violations of the biographies of living persons policy, as you did at JJ McKay. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And if you edit this article again (or any other BLP in the same manner) I will propose an edit ban on all biographies for your account. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017[edit]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Hildi Santo-Tomas. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. KH-1 (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017[edit]

Your recent editing history at Hildi Santo-Tomas shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Hildi Santo-Tomas. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for persistent vandalism, as you did at Patricia Cloherty. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 14:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]