THE ARTICLE ABOUT EBA DOES NOT INCLUDE REFERENCES FROM the Companies house, Intellectual Patent Office UK or links to any other activities.
It is clear that the editors of current articles are more included to use article Times based on anonymous ex employees instead of viable Companies house etc.
Hello, I'm Quisqualis. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Hello Quisqualis, I think that this article should state the point of view of both parties. At the moment it appears that only the quotes from the times are taken into account. EBA has made an official statement in its website The Official Address to Friends and Partners of Europe Business Assembly
‘If someone wants to see light – they will see light;
If someone wants to see darkness – they will see darkness!’
Confucius
Friends and partners of Europe Business Assembly!
First of all, we are very grateful for thousands of support letters from our partners and clients worldwide in relation to recent negative articles about EBA in British and international press. These unsubstantiated articles are based on the subjective opinion of a so-called anonymous ex-employee of EBA.
These articles attempt to darken reputation of not only EBA, but also thousands of our clients, partners. We take this very seriously and would like to inform you about our official position:
1) Europe Business Assembly (EBA), Oxford
EBA was established in Oxford in 2000 and works in accordance with English law. Its headquarters are based in Oxford. We have never claimed any affiliation to the University of Oxford or any British governmental institutions. Our company is a world leading event company. During our 17 year history, over 120 world-class conferences have been successfully organized. Our professional team consists of representatives from many international countries. Over 8,000 companies from 50 countries worldwide have participated in our summits. In our history we have not received a single official complaint from any of our clients.
The article should contain at least as many points for as against.
Hope you understand that neutrality is issential for the truth.
Wikipedia community is against one sided information!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Europe Business Assembly 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.
Your recent editing history at Europe Business Assembly shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. bonadeacontributionstalk07:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. — fortunavelut luna08:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Truth and honour! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk).
Hello Truth and honour. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a black hat practice. Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly. Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Truth and honour. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Truth and honour|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. — fortunavelut luna10:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.
The article is totally biased based on one source I.e. The Times. It misleads the readers and it is important that I should be able to add valuable information such as award registration patents and companies house official information.
Hope this is sufficient Truth and honour (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. You apparently intend to employ Wikipedia (an encyclopedia) for public relations purposes. This intention would be a misuse of Wikipedia for blatant promotion and misleading the public about your business. If you have a patent on your award, why would such useless minutia belong in an article about a discredited business? Further, why does the reading public need to know your self-congratulatory views of your company? You appear to be harbouring a delusion as to what Wikipedia can do to further your business. WP has been exploited in previous years by blatant promoters, and is currently cracking down on such practices and culling out promotional articles. Why do you demand that WP deviate from its current standards? Please put your energy into social media, where it belongs.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I was blocked from editing an article on Europe Business Assembly. More information is available on this company and should be added. Can you please remove the block. Many thanks.
I can see that you blocked us from editing. I would like to add information in relation to Europe Business Assembly and would like you to remove the block. Thanks Truth and honour (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Quisqualis. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Please do not use Wikipedia to promote businesses, such as you did in the article Europe Business Assembly. Wikipedia is not a trade directory. If you want to list a company for potential customers to find, please consider alternative outlets. Thank you. — fortunavelut luna 06:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Europe Business Assembly. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 10:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Truth_and_honour reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: ). Thank you. — fortunavelut luna 12:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
or 
) located above the edit window.
