User talk:David Coburn MEP

Welcome!

Hello, David Coburn MEP, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Pishcal — ♣ 15:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Hello, I'm Jay-Sebastos. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please also take WP:COI into serious consideration when making edits to a page with the same name as your username. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 16:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, David Coburn MEP. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

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.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

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. Pishcal — ♣ 16:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to David Coburn (politician). Thank you. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 16:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 16:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at David_Coburn_(politician). Please stop this conflict of interest editing or you will be deemed a single-purpose account and will not be able to edit Wikipedia any longer. Thanks. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 16:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at David Coburn (politician). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Coburn (politician) ‎

Please contact WP:ORTS if you are the subject and have issues with your article.Please refer to Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Your recent editing history at David Coburn (politician) 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2015 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:David_Coburn_MEP reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: ). Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to revert people 3 times in 24 hours, you've done it 1823 times now. Please stop, and contact WP:ORTS if you are the subject, and believe that you're being misrepresented. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to David Coburn (politician). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at David Coburn (politician). Theroadislong (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: They are up to 25 reversion so far, so they're getting blocked pretty soon anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Complaints

To complain to Wikipedia, you need to contact WP:ORTS, the information on how to do it is Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that anyone can create an account here and claim that they are a specific person? So how do we know that you're who you claim you are? Please stop edit-warring (or you might be blocked), and instead see WP:COI and WP:ORTS. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HandsomeFella: they're already on 25 reversions, and have a sockpuppet investigation, so it's unlikely they'll be round too much longer. Plus they seem to be ignoring the contact WP:ORTS instead of edit-warring message that has been posted multiple times on here. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Your recent edits to David Coburn (politician) could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31h for massive 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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Coburn, I was about to block this account, but another administrator got there first. There are two reasons:

For your own protection. I do not seriously doubt that you are who you say, but cases of impersonation are not unknown, and we have a procedure for making sure: you can establish your identity by emailing our volunteer response team at info-en-qwikimedia.org.
For edit-warring on David Coburn (politician), despite warnings. We do not allow edit-warring, because it means that articles end up in the form preferred by the most obstinate edit-warrior. The way Wikipedia works is described at WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: if your edit is reverted, do not just repeat it, but discuss it on the article talk page, and try to reach WP:Consensus with other users.
In any case, if you are David Coburn MEP, you should not be editing your own article. Please read WP:Autobiography and WP:Conflict of interest. You may make suggestions on the article talk page, understanding that the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy requires a reliable, published source.

There is advice for people concerned with articles about them at WP:Biographies of living persons/Help.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2015 (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 more than one account or IP address by one person. If this was not your intention, then please always remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered branching out to edit other articles? Just a random suggestion, you could try taking a look at Streisand_effect. New examples crop up and get added to that article all the time. Alsee (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Really, David. (taking your claim to be the subject of David Coburn (politician) at face value....) Please stop directly editing the article about you. As a public official you must be aware of conflicts of interest and the importance of respecting both the principles involved as well as the letter of whatever policies are in place, where ever you go. In Wikipedia, editors with a conflict of interest are strongly encouraged not to directly edit articles where they have a COI. There is an "edit request" function here in Wikipedia, where you can request an edit to the article, on the article's talk page. The Talk page for the article about you is here, and you will notice a box, at the bottom of the yellow/brown box that is at the top of the page -- it has a big exclamation point by it, and says "Individuals acting on behalf of this person or organization are strongly advised not to edit the article. Click here to request corrections or suggest content, or contact us if the issue is urgent." If you "click here" as it says, it sets up an edit request for you. Please use that function. Please respect Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. Jytdog (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that published sources are required for this claims. Contrary to your edit summary here, there is no malice in removing the assertion that Coburn attended the High School of Glasgow: the Scotsman story only states that it was a high school in Glasgow, so unless another published source is provided, that's as specific as Wikipedia policy allows the article to go. (First-hand recollections and direct inquiries of the school are neither published sources nor reliable sources.) Strictly speaking, WP:BLP says unsourced assertions may be removed from biographies; I've let the name of the high school stand for not but have flagged it as not being in the source given. —C.Fred (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edit war notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Coburn (politician). 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Jytdog (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2015 (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. Jytdog (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Your persistent reverts, including repeated removal of a maintenance tag on the High School of Glasgow article, have gotten you reported to an administrators' noticeboard. One of two things is likely to happen now:

Since this is your second offence, you're likely to be blocked for an intermediate period of time, probably on the order of three days to a week.
Since your username implies that you are Coburn, and you've held yourself out to be Coburn with your edits, you might be blocked indefinitely, until you've contacted the Volunteer Response Team and proved your identity. Even after doing so, you will not be exempt from following Wikipedia policies like WP:Biographies of living persons and WP:Three revert rule in editing the article.

(Speaking collectively for the Wikipedia editing community, even though I don't formally represent them,) We do really want to improve the David Coburn (politician) article—as I think you do. However, no editor has carte blanche to make changes to an article without citing reliable sources. Given the nature of British schooling, a claim about what high school a person attended does require a published reliable source, so that's why so many editors have pushed back so hard against your edits in that area.

We welcome engagement with you. We would like to work with you to reach a conclusion acceptable to as many editors as possible. However, if you're not willing to work within the guidelines, administrators will have to look to other guidelines like WP:Blocking policy in determining whether to restrict your editing privileges in the name of preventing further disruption to the encyclopedia. —C.Fred (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing: I have added this talk page to my "watchlist" of pages that I see if changes are made on, so if you wish to ask me a question, feel free to do so right here. —C.Fred (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. JohnCD (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you because despite previous explanations and a short block you have returned to edit-warring over the article.

I considered another short block, but I think we would just be back here again in another few days. However, "Indefinite" does not mean "Permanent"; it means that in order to be unblocked your unblock request will need to convince a reviewing administrator that you have confirmed your identity with the volunteer response team at info-en-qwikimedia.org, and also that you understand and accept that:

Edit-warring is not permitted: disagreements have to be settled by discussion on talk pages.
This is not your article, it is Wikipedia's article about you. If you want an article about yourself which you can control, there are Facebook and LinkedIn and many other social-networking sites, but Wikipedia is different.
Because of your conflict of interest, you should not edit the article directly, but may suggest corrections on the article talk page.

Before making your unblock request, please read WP:BLP and WP:BLP/H. JohnCD (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing I should add to this list: understand that the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy requires reliable, published sources rather than simple assertion. JohnCD (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected

Mr. Coburn, in case you come back, you may note that this page is partly protected. This isn't in response to anything you've done — following the Guardian article, people started vandalising your article extensively, and since your account's username was mentioned in the article, vandalism is likely to happen here, as well. I don't think protection should affect you at all, but if I made a mistake and my action unintentionally restricts you at all, email me and let me know, and I'll remove the protection. Nyttend (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]