User talk:Alloduckie

Welcome!

Hello, Alloduckie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Global

Hey, thank you for improving the Phoenix Global article. I don't know if you've looked at the talk page so I'm going to point out this section of a Wikipedia policy to you too: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Persons_accused_of_crime: "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." I am not very familiar with the whole story of Phoenix and Featherstone, so I'm hoping you can edit that article accordingly. I think Featherstone counts as a "relatively unknown person" (in the grand scheme of things). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPA/COI

Hi Alloduckie

All of your edits to date are on Phoenix Global and they have a clear POV. This makes your account what we call a "single purpose account" (please do read WP:SPA) and makes it likely that you have a conflict of interest. I am providing you with a conflict of interest notice, and then will have a question for you - I look forward to your answer

Hello, Alloduckie. 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.
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. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

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.

question

Please tell me what relationship you have with Phoenix Global or any of its principals. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response on the article Talk page. Would you please tell me why you appear to be upset with them? ThanksJytdog (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your response on my Talk page. To be frank I don't find your response that you are neutral about this group, to be credible. I am willing to accept that you have no COI and have removed category from this page, but your edits very clearly demonstrate WP:ADVOCACY. Please read that, and please keep in mind that while it is indeed very true that we don't whitewash anything, neither are we a tabloid. Please try hard to check whatever issues you bring to this article at the login page, and be very mindful of NPOV. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 07:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alloduckie. As you and I discussed above, and as jeraphine explained to you at the talk page, we raise questions of COI all the time. You and I discussed above, and I agreed that I would accept your claim that you have no COI per se, and warned you about advocacy. I recorded that as well at COIN. The matter is settled. Please don't be offended, all this was handled graciously up til now. Jytdog (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not "slanderous" to say that you're a "SPA with a negative POV", it's just an observation -- you're quite evidently a single-purpose account. I think you were doing a good job with improving and expanding the article and using reliable sources for every addition and your writing tone wasn't bad either. But, as you know now, some of the content is debatable (so we're debating it on the talk page). And a SPA may have a positive bias, like someone who tries to make the company look good. But you're not doing that, you're the opposite of that, hence the "negative POV". — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

BELOW IS AN EXAMPLE OF DWPAUL'S HARRASSMENT OF ANOTHER EDITOR WHO HAS UNDONE VANDALISM. SEEMS DWPAUL IS PRO-VANDALISM WHEN IT SUITS HIM. HE LIKE TO PUT ALL THESE WARNINGS ON TALK PAGE OF OTHER EDITORS DOING ANTI-VANDALISM HE DOESNT AGREE WITH. GO AWAY DWPAUL! Alloduckie (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Dwpaul. Your recent edit to the page Phoenix Global appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As requested by Dwpaul. Source 1 = ^[1]. Source 2 = ^[2]. Alloduckie (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Whois search ("Registrant Email: ...@phoenixglobal.com.au")". Retrieved 20 April 2015.
^ "Whois search ("Registrant Contact Email ...@phoenixglobal.com.au")". Retrieved 20 April 2015.

... Which is called original research. Unless you can supply a reliable, published source that states that the organizations are currently related and more specifically that the "brand" you mentioned is somehow implicated in the scandal associated with PG (and having the same WHOIS registration address is not proof of any such thing), you'd do well to stop trying to associate them in the article. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dwpaul I did not introduce those brands, they were already there. I was undoing vandalism by a banned user. And then you reintroduced the vandalism by the banned COI user. You need to have a hard look at your own behavior in supporting vandals and vandalism on this article. You'r looking very much like WP:advocacy is affecting your actions. And you'r a vandal sympathizer.

I have no idea what you think I'm advocating, other than the following of Wikipedia policy. And you are being uncivil. Don't push it. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dwpaul, you are being uncivil by advocating for an identified Vandal who you seem to support, and arguing with me for my good actions when I undo the vandalism. Please behave yourself and a warning to you to stop re-doing vandalism after someone has undone the vandalism. Dont know what your agenda is but it seems somewhat unpleasant. Alloduckie (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I advocated for no one, and you are the one who summoned me here to show me "proof" that is proof of nothing. I reverted you once; you have been reverted by others since. I need no warnings from you, thank you. If you think I have violated a policy, bring it up at WP:AN/I. Otherwise, please take your own advice, and stop wasting my time. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dwpaul Perhaps you should stop wasting time when you reintroduce vandalism. Alloduckie (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're not supposed to throw around the word "vandalism" in an effort to make another editor look bad (WP:NOT VANDALISM). You're the one who is re-adding content that other editors have a problem with (claiming that that website is a brand of PG when there's no (sufficient) evidence for it). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Phoenix Global. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Whois search ("Registrant Email: ...@phoenixglobal.com.au")". Retrieved 20 April 2015.

[2] "Whois search ("Registrant Contact Email ...@phoenixglobal.com.au")". Retrieved 20 April 2015.

[1]

[2]