User talk:TruthBTold212

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of OPamuk1967b (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Talk:Franz Lidz, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question

Hi. I wanted to address your question from my talk page here, since the thread on my talk page is already a bit complex.

I am a staffer at a publishing house in the United States. Part of my job is to oversee and monitor the Wikipedia entries of our authors. One of the entries that I am in charge of is the author Franz Lidz. For the past couple of months his entry has been under attack by Robert Garside, who has used at least three Wikipedia account names to make alterations. I and other members of my department have continually tried to undo his revisions -- yet he will not stop the harrassment. I have contacted other Wikipedia administrators, but they have been unable to make Mr. Garside cease his relentless edit wars. Is there anyone I can appeal to who might be so empowered. Thanks so much for your help.TruthBTold212 (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC) TruthBTold (Bloomsbury USA)

First, as the message left you above says, there are complications inherent in your interaction with articles and your job. We do ask that you read over that guideline and make sure that your edits to articles related to these authors are compliant. See also Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations.

Second, this particular matter is complex. Because I have edited the article Robert Garside, I would not myself take administrative action related to the subject unless the need for administrative action were clear, immediate and uncontroversial.

Part of the problem here is that the edits to the article Franz Lidz have not always been compliant with our biographies of living persons policy. This policy applies to all spaces on Wikipedia, and edit summaries such as this are a clear violation. That and the rotating cast of user accounts editing the article are likely to draw attention away from what I think you believe to be the core of the dispute (unreasonable removal of material by somebody you believe to be overly protective of Garside's reputation) and to behavioral questions on the side of you and your colleagues. This is, at core, a content dispute, and it needs to be resolved accordingly--through conversation with the other party or, if such conversation is not possible or constructive, through the assistance of the wider editing community.

The current text in the article, [1], is far more neutral. There's no denying that the run was controversial. I get 358 Google results combining the terms: [2]. While Garside's supporters have objected to the use of the term "controversy", it is not in itself libelous. It does not draw conclusions about the truth of the run, but merely notes that the record has been disputed. It has; this is documented. Its removal is therefor not justified by WP:BLP, though the relevance of the fact for inclusion and the exact wording is certainly open to standard community debate. You should make your case for it at the talk page of the article. If User:Dromeaz disagrees, then you have the option of inviting further review through one of the avenues described in WP:DR. Level headed conversation with other editors is the way to go.

If you feel that User:Dromeaz or any contributor is disruptive of Wikipedia processes, you do have the option of pursuing those concerns as well as the content concerns. WP:DR sets out some options there as well. See also Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring at Franz Lidz. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary removed

Talk pages are for discussing how to improve articles. They aren't for generic rants about how Wikipedia works. The article probably still needs quite a bit of work...but at least it isn't a propaganda piece written by the subject's promoters. If there are errors, please point them out. I don't think anyone here wants this to be an inaccurate article. --Onorem ♠Dil 22:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please look over the policies of this website. If you carry on disrupting the encyclopdia, you'll be blocked again. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Franz Lidz. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't hire editors, we're here voluntarily, unlike you. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for disruption and edit warring at Talk:Franz Lidz. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following Wikipedia policies, Franz Lidz is a notable biographical topic about which volunteer editors seem willing to build a sourced and encyclopedic article. However, Wikipedia is not a marketing platform for "witty" ad copy, nor is it a soapbox for personal opinion. If, when this block has automatically lifted, you carry on breaching the policies of this website, the next block will be indefinite. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked you. Please don't edit war. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]