User talk:Holomatrix

Welcome!

Hello, Holomatrix, 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.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Best practices for editors with close associations
• 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! Alexbrn (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Alexbrn (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Your post is defamatory and incorrect.

Tom Whipple was forced to retract the claim about Fenton being an author on the HART document in his Times article for this reason

Whether or not you agree with the HART document, Fenton was NEVER an author on it, he was not involved in its production and therefore your posting that he was is an outright lie. Holomatrix (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I have included links to the HART document

Have a look for yourself.

There is nothing in it listing Fenton as an author and nothing in it even linking to Fenton as being responsible for the document in any way Holomatrix (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Norman Fenton. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass other editors, as you did at Norman Fenton. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Threaten away. This is making for an interesting article.

I have provided citations and evidence that the imputation Alexbrn made on Fenton's page is untrue and incorrect. Fenton had no part in the HART document and I have linked to the hart document to demonstrate that this is true.

Clearly you are not interested in the truth. Tom Whipple was made by the editors and counsel at the Times to retract the statement - because the same evidence (a link to the HART document) was provided to them. Holomatrix (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit-warring, persistent contentious editing, flagrant violation of the policy on biographies of living persons, and harassment of an editor by repeatedly posting personal attacks and unsubstantiated accusations of dishonesty.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  JBW (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

So I am blocked for telling the truth?

Look at the evidence I cited on the page

The claim that Fenton was involved in the Hart document is a lie. Tom Whipple was forced by his editor and legal counsel to retract it and if you look at Tom Whipple's article now Fenton's name is removed and it has an emendation at the bottom saying Tom removed it.

Maintaining information on Fenton's page claiming he wrote that article is defamatory Holomatrix (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Where is the part of what I wrote that says you are blocked for telling the truth? You may like to reread it, and see that you are blocked because of the way you went about dealing with other editors you found yourself in disagreement with, not because of the facts you attempted to convey. Read it carefully, and you will see that there is no mention of the information which you tried to post into the article. The reason why there is no mention of it is that it's totally irrelevant: the block had nothing whatever to do with that. JBW (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I tried to do it the right way and Alexbrn and his (possibly) mate wouldnt listen

I wrote a properly cited piece of material linking to the facts and the documents and even to Tom Whipple's CORRECTED Times article (that the Times added the Emendation to to say that Fenton was removed from the article)

The fact is that rather than reading what I wrote and then following the citations to see if I was right - Alexbrn did what others like Dr Angela Stanton have complained about. He reverts it and calls anything you did "fuckwittery" (have a look - that is what he did to me and it is also what he did to her) Holomatrix (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

Hey, Holomatrix, just wanted to let you know the information you're objecting to has been removed while other editors try to investigate.

We do want to get articles right, in particular those about living people. For future reference, the best way to handle something like this is to go to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, open a section, and make your case. What you instead added to the article, while it was rude to call it fuckwittery, absolutely looked like something a vandal might add, and it's not at all surprising it was removed. As you can imagine, we get a lot of vandals and other contentious editing at COVID-19 topics.

I'm afraid I don't know who Angela Stanton is. We don't seem to have an article on her, though. Valereee (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)