User talk:Telegirl7

Your recent editing history 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. WWGB (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest?[edit]

Also you imply that you might have a conflict of interest in your editing. If this is the case (and especially if you are being WP:PAID), then please declare your connection with the subject. Dbfirs 08:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no implication of any conflict of interest. I am not being paid. I am attempting to revise the page to reflect accurate and updated biographical information about a person, ie Malcolm Wakeford. Perhaps you could clarify why you believe there is a conflict of interest. I am doing this so that people who are interested in his music and career can obtain updated information ahout him in accordance with my understanding of what open source information is supposed to be.

Telegirl7 (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the phrase "on behalf of Malcolm Wakeford" suggests that you at least know the subject, and thus have a conflict of interest. You also imply that your are Rwearin who created the article years ago. Dbfirs 11:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That is me. If I could remember my rwearin password I would have logged in under that name. Nothing to hide Telegirl7 (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's an interesting fact. Rwearin is the business partner of Malcolm Wakeford [1]. No conflict of interest? WWGB (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a web host[edit]

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).

Telegirl7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. Place any further information here. Telegirl7 (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. You forgot to tell us your IP address so we can't investigate your claim. You can find your IP address using WhatIsMyIP. If you don't wish to provide this publicly, you may use WP:UTRS. Yamla (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2018 (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.

I don't understand any of this. I am in the process of revising the page I was uploading last night to include references. The reason I didn't upload them immediately was that they are being checked.

I'm using my personal computer. I am not a web host.

Telegirl7 (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested that in order to edit the page I use the sandbox. I am now blocked from doing that. Please unblock me so I can continue. Telegirl7 (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Malcolm Forest Wakeford (February 2)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Malcolm Wakeford instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

There already is an article on Malcolm Wakeford. This draft appears to be an effort, probably good-faith, to use AFC to have a substitute version of an article approved in place of the existing article. That isn't what AFC is for. If the changes that you have made to an article have been reverted, and you want them restored, that is a content dispute. Read dispute resolution, and discuss the proposed changes on the article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, you may request moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard, or formal mediation by the Mediation Committee, or you may submit a Request for Comments for consensus by the community. If you have any further questions about dispute resolution, you may ask at the Teahouse or the Help Desk.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Malcolm Forest Wakeford and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Malcolm Forest Wakeford, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Telegirl7! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Telegirl7 - Please see my comments above on how to deal with contested edits to an article such as Malcolm Wakeford. AFC is not intended to replace one version of an article with another version. Discuss your edits on the article talk page, Talk:Malcolm Wakeford. If that does not resolve the matter, there are several additional options, including two forms of mediation or a Request for Comments, which asks for community input and results in consensus being assessed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Future edits now at Malcolm Wakeford[edit]

@Telegirl7:. Hi! Since I last contacted you, another editor who is very experienced in Australian popular music articles, Shaidar cuebiyar, has begun to edit the original article at Malcolm Wakeford. I think it is best that all future edits occur at that article. I have copied all your new content from Draft:Malcolm Forest Wakeford to Malcolm Wakeford. I suggest we all edit that original article from now on. If we all work together, I am sure that we can produce a good article. Regards, WWGB (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WWGB I look forward to working with Shaidar Cuebiyar. As you can see I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to do this properly. I agree a shortened article will work. However , it appears another editor has blocked me (see below). Superficial googling has revealed, as I have always admitted, Malcolm is known to me. Very well in fact, this does not equate to any conflict of interest in any legal or moral sense. What a "topic ban broadly construed" means is unclear. Can we proceed? I'm not going to respond to that message.

Telegirl7 (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

As you have attempted to mislead us about your conflict of interest around Malcolm Wakeford, I have now blocked your account indefinitely. Any admin is welcome to unblock you if you fully disclose your conflict of interest and agree to a topic ban around Malcolm Wakeford, broadly construed. --Yamla (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. 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 ~~~~}}.