User talk:Samsonsegg

August 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Tim Flach has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Tim Flach was changed by Samsonsegg (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.87574 on 2018-08-14T16:20:44+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Samsonsegg. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Tim Flach, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. 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);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello! Samsonsegg, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. It's a good place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please give it a try! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2018 (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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tim Flach. scope_creep (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV

Hi Samsonsegg, you must let people reply, and stop trying to force the issue. I suggest you wait 24 hours, until the consensus is decided, or create an RFC. That is the 4th time, I had to fix those references. I will not be making any more reverts, next time I will be escalating it up to an administrator. The sentence itself, is structurally sound, properly sourced, and verifies the factual content of the sentences. You seem to be trying to de WP:NPOV the article, by removing two perfectly valid sentences, which means the article will be no longer properly factual correct. I suggest you don't revert again. Content issues should be fixed on the page. The article as it stands is perfectly reasonable. scope_creep (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay scope_creep, thanks a lot for your advice. I just found it all a bit confusing why no one responded to my concerns about those sentences and simply reverted my edit. I felt I was making a good case and no one was paying attention. Thanks again for your advice on the references, I won't make any more mistakes. Samsonsegg (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without sound trite, Folks make mistake all the time, it is how you deal with and fix it. I think you have improved the article. Keep it up. scope_creep (talk) 09:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion, as you did at Tim Flach. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Swarm ♠ 21:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Samsonegg, you seem to be an amicable person, but from your edits it seems apparent that your only goal here is to promote Tim Flach. Between your repeated attempts to remove what you perceive to be negative information, and inserting content that blatantly sounds like it's written for a promotional article, including blatant puffery, along with the fact that you apparently have no interest in any other articles, I simply can't accept your word that you have no connection to the subject, whether it's paid promotion or merely a sentimental one. Swarm ♠ 22:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Swarm ♠, I really thought "famous for" was more accurate than "specialises in", or at least more verifiably correct. It wasn't intended to be flattering and I wasn't even concerned that it might be. I actually think this block is very unfair -- I tried to discuss everything fairly and justify/reference all my suggestions :( :( I don't really understand why I've gotten so much hate Samsonsegg (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]