User talk:Fatherhope55

David Rowland

You might not like it, but the Daily Mail does qualify as a WP:RS. You are also removing material sourced from other newspapers. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NLT Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the blog link. The rest of the article is sourced from newspapers, covered by WP:RS. Please desist from vandalising the article or I will have to request administrator intervention. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this at the noticeboard and you were more in the right than Jmorrison230582, as the Daily Mail is a tabloid and not suitable for sourcing material on living people. However, there are a couple of other things I need to make you aware of for the future.

Hello, Fatherhope55. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Your recent editing history 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.

Let me know if there is anything else I can help you with. --John (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Previous identity

Can you confirm that you previously edited as Fatherhope (talk · contribs)? Please be honest. --John (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about Hope61 (talk · contribs)? Was that also you? --John (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are, sorry as i didn't register until around 2 weeks ago. Regards Hope55

That's fine. Did you have any other user names? I'll block these older ones if you aren't using them any more as you aren't supposed to edit with more than one. --John (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That should be all thanks John =) Fatherhope55 (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]