User talk:RachelElnaughLoveDragon

Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline

Hello, Rachel. I am writing to make sure that you are aware of an important Wikipedia guideline, which you may already know of, but it's best to make sure. It seems that you have edited Wikipedia about yourself. Anyone editing about themselves or about subjects to which they have a close personal connection fall under the provisions of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE).

A more detailed account is available in the conflict of interest guideline, which is linked above. JBW (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have the right to correct blatant and misleading propaganda about myself which I believe to be libellous. A formal complaint is being entered with Wikipedia. Rachel RachelElnaughLoveDragon (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Rachel Elnaugh—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am correcting blatant misleading propaganda about myself which I believe to be libellous. A formal complaint will now be made with Wikipedia. Rachel RachelElnaughLoveDragon (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Rachel Elnaugh. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 07:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am correcting blatant misleading propaganda about myself which I believe to be libellous. A formal complaint will now be made with Wikipedia. RachelElnaughLoveDragon (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing the photo? Materialscientist (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the image (which looks like a random Zoom screenshot) is intended to portray me in an unfavourable way. My entire Wikipedia page appears to have been hacked by what I believe to be politically motivated edits constituting propaganda which I believe to be inaccurate, misleading and libellous. I have entered a complaint. Rachel Elnaugh-LOVE RachelElnaughLoveDragon (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Materialscientist she seems to have also edited as User:Rachel Elnaugh-LOVE.

@RachelElnaughLoveDragon You really do have to stop editing your biography. You can use the talk page but you might be better off making your requests at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Note that you can be blocked from editing your biography if you continue to edit it. I am pretty certain that if you can show that there are lies about you in the article someone will deal with them. Please avoid any legal threats as WP:NLT means you'll just get blocked completely if you make any, and that won't help you. I'm sorry you are having a bad experience here. Doug Weller talk 08:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK - I've put out a call for assistance via my social media platforms and the response is pretty much that Wikipedia is a corrupt and unreliable source of information. No doubt the propaganda will be removed by others in time. Meanwhile, if there is a way to take legal action, I will. LOVE Rachel x RachelElnaughLoveDragon (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 09:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing for support, contemplated legal action, and other matters

Apparently you have made what seem to amount to requests for other people to edit in support of the changes you wish to have made. This kind of action, if left unchecked, would have the unfortunate effect of enabling anyone who can organise a pressure group to dominate articles and impose their preferred version, effectively silencing other editors who are acting alone. This would undermine the fundamental basis of Wikipedia's open ethos, and so it is not allowed. You may read more about this at Wikipedia:Meatpuppetry if you wish to.
You have indicated that you are contemplating taking legal action against the Wikimedia Foundation. You are, of course, perfectly free to do so. However, having a person editing Wikipedia at the same time as taken legal action against its proprietors would produce a conflict of interest, and would run the risk of causing various problems; therefore as long as a person is contemplating or pursuing legal action in relation to Wikipedia, they must not edit. Your accounts (this one and Rachel Elnaugh-LOVE have therefore been blocked from editing, except that you still have access to editing your talk pages, so that you can request to be unblocked when no legal action is still in progress, pending, or contemplated, if you are interested in starting to contribute to the encyclopaedia in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. To do so, post {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of the talk page, replacing the words "Your reason here" with an explanation of why you think you should be unblocked.
You may like to consider whether the way you have handled this was the best. You say that material in the article is libellous. If that is so, then the best approach might have been to have explained how it was libellous, in a calm and civil manner, so that editors could have considered your reasons, and made an assessment as to whether they justified removing the material. Unfortunately, it is impossible to tell from what you have said whether you do have serious grounds for viewing the material as libellous, or whether it's just that the coverage of you is expressed in ways that you don't like. If you do believe that you have genuine reasons for believing that the material is libellous, you may like to post those reasons here. That way it may be possible for us to resolve the matter more quickly and smoothly than would be achieved by legal action, and the block will then no longer be necessary. JBW (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that I am being targeted by a smear campaign, which includes salacious editing of my Wikipedia page, since I ran for election last year, and have now stated my intention to run for election as East Midlands Mayor and MP for Derbyshire Dales in 2024. The blocking/reversal of edits by myself and others attempting to correct the propaganda is quite shocking. Clearly I must be a threat to The System for people to go to these lengths in an attempt to smear an Independent candidate !!! No matter ~ it's clear that the majority of my followers already believe Wikipedia to be corrupt. RachelElnaughLoveDragon (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have it your own way. Treat it as a battleground with you against a conspiracy of wicked corrupt evil people out to get you if yoh like, rather than a group of people acting in good faith who would be perfectly willing to help you if you approached them in a constructive spirit. Once again, if the material in question really is libellous, rather than just not being to your liking, then please explain why, and I will see whether there is any substance to your concerns. If you do that, and if there really are grounds for regarding it as libel, then the material should be and will be removed; however, we can't tell whether it is libellous or not unless you tell us what the grounds are for regarding it as libellous. Wikipedia absolutely does not remove information about people purely because it does not show them in as favourable a light as they would like, but it does remove material which is defamatory or libellous. This is my last time of reaching out to you; I hope you will take up my offer, but obviously that is up to you. JBW (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HI JBW

Thank you for your response.

The first and most important amendment which needs to be restored is to the page 2024 East Midlands mayoral election

I have publicly declared my intention to stand in this election as an Independent Candidate under my commonly known name of Rachel Elnaugh-LOVE.

Why was my name and image (added by another user) removed from this page?

It is clear that there are certain forces who do not wish the public to know who they are able to vote for in these elections. (Perhaps the same people who have attempted to have me arrested for Election Fraud?)

I will write separately regarding the page about me entitled Rachel Elnaugh.

Thanks

Rachel Elnaugh-LOVE 95.149.123.7 (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't edit logged out. This can lead to your being blocked. When reliable independent sources publish your candidacy I'm sure it will be added. Doug Weller talk 13:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it I have been blocked from editing.

What better 'Independent Reliable Source' can you have than the candidate herself?

If you'd like to view the video in which the announcement was made it is at: [link blocked by wikipedia so I have edited it out]

(And on the subject of 'Independent Reliable Sources' are you aware that the majority of Mainstream Media is now owned/controlled/funded by strategic partners of the World Economic Forum who write to a clear agenda to bulldoze through The Great Reset? No doubt Wikipedia also receives funding from the same sources!)

LOVE

Rachel 95.149.123.7 (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT use the IP, you can still post here with your account. Our reliable sources have to be reliably published by mainstream sources. That might actually happen to you despite your dislike of them. I assume if it does you won't trust it so it should be removed. In any case you clearly don't belong here if you won't follow our policy at WP:Verify and WP:RS. At the moment you are blocked because you won't state that you have no intention to proceed with or encourage legal action against Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you really believe all that conspiracy theory nonsense, and are not just trolling, then there's no point trying to communicate with you. Make sure your tin foil hat is firmly in place when you post here, so that Wikipedia can't take control of your brain while you edit. JBW (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]