User talk:Connerdn

December 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Bow Group. David J Johnson (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you are making ARE WRONG.

This article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11022652/Tories-put-a-turbulent-priest-in-the-dock.html

You have attributed to 2015, can you read dates? It was published on August 9th 2014. Not quite "later in 2015".

It was part of a smear campaign organised from CCHQ, now referenced as part of the "Tatler Tory" scandal : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3356909/Party-bullies-forced-says-critic-Tatler-Tory-branded-vile-homophobe-menace-suspended-Conservatives.html

Furthermore another change has been made to suggest "all Bow Group Patrons condemned tactical voting". Lords Howe and Tebbit did not, nor did Professor Roger Scruton or Dr David Starkey. Most Bow Group Patrons did not therefore condemn it. http://www.bowgroup.org/people

I strongly suggest that you do not open yourself up to litigation by repeating or publishing false information.

Connerdn (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Bow Group. Thank you. Scr★pIron^IV 15:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you are making ARE WRONG.

This article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11022652/Tories-put-a-turbulent-priest-in-the-dock.html

You have attributed to 2015, can you read dates? It was published on August 9th 2014. Not quite "later in 2015".

It was part of a smear campaign organised from CCHQ, now referenced as part of the "Tatler Tory" scandal : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3356909/Party-bullies-forced-says-critic-Tatler-Tory-branded-vile-homophobe-menace-suspended-Conservatives.html

Furthermore another change has been made to suggest "all Bow Group Patrons condemned tactical voting". Lords Howe and Tebbit did not, nor did Professor Roger Scruton or Dr David Starkey. Most Bow Group Patrons did not therefore condemn it. http://www.bowgroup.org/people

I strongly suggest that you do not open yourself up to litigation by repeating or publishing false information.

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Bow Group. 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. Scr★pIron^IV 16:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Scr★pIron^IV 16:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Bow Group 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Scr★pIron^IV 16:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Bow Group. Scr★pIron^IV 19:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

READ:

The edits you are making ARE WRONG.

This article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11022652/Tories-put-a-turbulent-priest-in-the-dock.html

You have attributed to 2015, can you read dates? It was published on August 9th 2014. Not quite "later in 2015".

It was part of a smear campaign organised from CCHQ, now referenced as part of the "Tatler Tory" scandal : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3356909/Party-bullies-forced-says-critic-Tatler-Tory-branded-vile-homophobe-menace-suspended-Conservatives.html

Furthermore another change has been made to suggest "all Bow Group Patrons condemned tactical voting". Lords Howe and Tebbit did not, nor did Professor Roger Scruton or Dr David Starkey. Most Bow Group Patrons did not therefore condemn it. http://www.bowgroup.org/people

I strongly suggest that you do not open yourself up to litigation by repeating or publishing false information.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genre in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at Bow Group. David J Johnson (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for legal threats. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Your comments on this talk page warning other editors about legal action constitute legal threats. Acalamari 20:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]