User talk:Orbiston

Who's behind Murphy edits?

I think The Controller is using a professional company to "tidy up" his image. Changes are rapid and very nervous. The facts about the breakdown of his marriage are well known and Broadcast magazine couldn't be a more reliable source. If Murphy doesn't like it, then he should ask for a retraction from the magazine and I will rethink. In the meantime it stays as it is.

Not a question of accuracy

This entry, which barely merits life as a stub, is littered with PR nonsense. Wikipedia is not the place for self promotion or PR puff. This reeks of PR puff.

August 2012

Hello, I'm Tiptoety. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Stuart Murphy, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 02:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Biographies of living persons noticeboard discussion

Hello, Orbiston. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tiptoety ^talk 05:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Stuart Murphy. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Tiptoety ^talk 02:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battleground behavior

This is your only warning, continuing your battleground behavior in the Stuart Murphy article will get you blocked. Accusing other editors of being PR staff or friends of the subject, accusing other editors of being vandals, and edit warring is the quickest way to get there. Please read Wikipedia:Disputes for the best ways to handle these situations.--v/r - T P 00:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Stuart Murphy. 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 adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. v/r - T P 14:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.