Jump to content

Talk:Victoria Atkins

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Husband and cannabis

[edit]

Speedything, you said that it had already been discussed that her husband being the CEO of a cannabis-growing firm fitted better into a controversies section than into the personal life section. Where was this discussed? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copying from my (talk)Page... Speedything

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.

The reason the user keeps removing the content you are adding is not because it is poorly source, they are removing it because it does not belong in Personal Life, therefore stop attempting to place it in personal life. Further violation of the revert rule and disruptive editing may result in a block. Please try to solve conflicts peacefully. Chieftain Tartarus 11:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • It wasn't really a discussion, it was more an advisory based on how other articles are laid out. That being said, I am 100% behind Speedything in the relevance of this information to the article. The discussion should never have been whether the information was relevant, it should have been where to correctly place the information in the article. Users should not feel 'restrained' when it comes to adding new sections to articles if they are confident that the information is relevant to the subject. Based on the recent edit history of the article, I believe this compromise has resolved the dispute and it appears the other warring party, User:Heliotom, is satisfied; therefore I don't see any need for further discussion, with the exception of course being if new information comes to light about the subject. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]