User talk:Legrepunalycou

Welcome!

Hello, Legrepunalycou, 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. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Reference errors on 26 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the University of Law page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dont' worry, I've fixed this already. CT Cooper · talk 14:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Chris! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.243.199 (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to University of Law and related articles

All of your edits to Wikipedia, both under this name and as an IP have been to University of Law and articles related to it You have repeatedly added promotional text to the University of Law article. This strongly suggests you are editing with a conflict of interest. If you have been asked by your employer or client to make edits to articles connected to them, these are considered "paid editing", and in those cases, you must disclose your connection and name the employer or client for whom you work. Please read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. If you have any other affiliation with that university, you should explicitly acknowledge a potential conflict of interest. You don't need to identify yourself but simply state that you are a connected contributor with respect to that article, either on your user page or the article's talk page, and you should refrain from editing University of Law or related articles directly. Rather, you should propose changes at Talk:University of Law. Voceditenore (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at University of Law, you may be blocked from editing. Reaganomics88 (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Reaganomics88 (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legrepunalycou, under the principle of assuming good faith, you've previously been given a lot of leeway in regards to making changes to the University of Law article, but I'm afraid those days are over. The reality was that your edits were turning the article from an encyclopedic one into a promotional puff piece, and you were going to have to be challenged on that at some point. You are not helping yourself here by edit warring, which is unacceptable and will lead to a block if it continues. It is also pretty obvious that you have some kind of connection to the university, particularly after this exchange on Commons, and your failure to come clean on this is being looked on poorly by myself and other editors. CT Cooper · talk 21:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Persistent Disruptive Promotional Editing at University of Law by User:Legrepunalycou. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 37 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

This is related to your persistent non-neutral editing at University of Law, which has given the firm impression that you're attempting to convert the article from a neutral encyclopedic treatment of the subject into a promotional document. Of course, a block would be out of order for someone who's done just one or two edits of the sort, because such a person could well be unfamiliar with our policies; the block came because you've repeatedly reverted other editors' removal of this content, so it's clear that you're doing this intentionally. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]