User talk:Dbasemgr69

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Dbasemgr69, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of 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)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Codf1977 (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. 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. 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. Codf1977 (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no conflict of interest -- no affiliation with Kingston University or individuals referenced on its page.

Have you ever had an affiliation with Kingston University or with anyone else who has had an affiliation with Kingston University ? Codf1977 (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a distant cousin who worked there, but that was a long time ago, at least 10 years ago. Other than that, no affiliation whatsoever.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VANDALISM

Please have a read of WP:VANDALISM before you revert any more edits you suspect of being VANDALISM. The edit you undid here was clearly NOT.

On the subject of the Edit itself - do not restore the link as his official site unless you can show it it, nothing on the IMDB page shows that it is.

Codf1977 (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat stop making false accusations of vandalism as you did with the edit summary on this edit. Such acusations are a breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Codf1977 (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, stop moving the goalposts on your demands, and accept reasonable edits--your actions are vandalism. And your accusations of COI are personal attacks in breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Else the way to deal with things is to put in a request for dispute resolution. I have now applied to block you from editing this article and to protect the page pending outcome of such a dispute resolution.Dbasemgr69 (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voicing well founded concerns about a potential WP:COI is not a personal attack. Codf1977 (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfounded accusations (as these are) are tantamount to personal attacks, especially when they constitute abuse of WP policy on using COI accusations to gain advantage in content disputes.03:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Anti Semitic and Radical Islamic Groups on Campus section of Kingston University

There is a growing consensus amongst editors on the article talk page, that this section should be removed from the artical, the reasons are detailed on the talk page here. The editors are Hoary (here), Itsmejudith (here) and myself (here). Please do not restore this section until and unless a consensus on the talk page indicates that it should be restored. Codf1977 (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section has been restored pending the outcome of dispute resolution. Please note that another editor, mattygroberts has agreed with this content, and there is no current consensus among editors.02:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

mattygroberts has admitted to a WP:COI and has not commented on the removal of the section and , in the same way as I have not included Pandabearcollective as it appears he/she also may have a WP:COI. Codf1977 (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mattygroberts has also indicated his support for the inclusion of the material on extremists prior to theWP:COI issue having arisen for him. His potential WP:COI does not make his views on islamic extremists any less valid. Also, since then another user, Catface1965 has come out in favor of the continued inclusion.Dbasemgr69 (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The timing of when mattygroberts indicated his support is of no relevance to his WP:COI - he has one and it could colour his thoughts regarding anything to do with the University and as such the WP policy is clear that you should avoid articles on subjects for which you have a conflict. As for Catface1965 and his/her comments I think we need to wait till the outcome of the SPI before taking them into account; there is no rush as the article is protected for 2 weeks. Codf1977 (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facts are facts, and what mattygroberts raised in respect of the islamic extremists operating at Kingston University are facts -- they are not subject to 'coloured thoughts.' But on one thing, we agree, there is no rush and we should continue to try to resolve this disagreement over the next two weeks.Dbasemgr69 (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catface1965 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Codf1977 (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]