User talk:Karelin7

Hello, Karelin7! Welcome to Wikipedia! We're so glad you're here! If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills, the sandbox is for you. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

David Copperfield

"Tendentious allegations of plaintiffs' are still reportable in the encyclopedia if they can be sourced. ► RATEL ◄ 01:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only, I think if they do not violate WP:UNDUE. They should only be given space in accordance with there prominence. --BozMo talk 10:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article David Copperfield, 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 from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, 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 conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Your intimate knowledge of the lawsuit (Viva v Copperfield) and WP:SPA profile bespeaks a COI. ► RATEL ◄ 02:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see this edit warring on the part Ratel. He is an established editor making edits in good faith. While it's clear you have concerns please refrain from making these comments about other editors, it's taken as an assumption of bad faith. It is easy to make this mistake when you are new here if you feel strongly about something you consider important - I did. I think we should all assume the article and concerns are proposed in good faith and discuss them. (Ratel, please give Karelin the benefit of the doubt with regards to COI). Karelin if you have COI please declare it now, this does not preculde you from having valid concerns, but it does mean they have to be addressed carefully.

As this is a biography of the living I would urge caution and suggest that temporarily debated content is removed pending debate and consensus and no further edits on this are made to the article until is reached. Does this seem reasonable? Amicaveritas (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP trumps all

It seems your concerns are receiving the attention of seasoned Wikipedia editors and admins, but know that it does not matter who or what you are or how much or little an expert you are; WP:BLP policy is clear, absolute and rigorous, so don't be bullied. If things get out of hand, go straight to WP:OTRS for immediate help. Flowanda | Talk 09:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that I am bullying this editor? ► RATEL ◄ 09:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from duplicate)Ratel, Please be reasonable. You cannot seriously consider such a circumspect implication as that an accusation of bullying, or a personal attack. --BozMo talk 10:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)--BozMo talk 10:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing David Copperfield (illiusionist)

Thank you for your contributions. Please read what's on the page before adding in existing info again. Also, please check out the correct way to cite sources. ► RATEL ◄ 04:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [1] is a mess. Please fix it. You have broken an existing paragraph, mangled the meaning, repeated existing text, inserted one sentence into another, put fullstops in the middle of a sentence, used peacock terms like "largest", used a questionable source ... the list goes on. Please take more care. ► RATEL ◄ 05:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Upto this point, I (and I suspect others) have been willing to look the other way slightly on your clear conflict of interest because your edits have been overall positive for the article (I don't need to say which one because as a single purpose account, you don't edit anywhere else) but you now seem to be moving towards trying to WP:OWN it. Having failed to remove the FBI section, it's pretty clear you want to bury it deep in the article - it's clearly information about his personal life not his business interests, not lawsuits - it therefore stays in the personal life section. We are here to provide a NPOV account of someone's life - we aren't here to slam them but equally we aren't here to protect them. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karelin7 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Cameron Scott (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at David Copperfield, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ► RATEL ◄ 05:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard request

I removed your edits and filed a request for help at the WP:BLP noticeboard at WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#David Copperfield (again). Please comment there or the talk page, but even if you were just making a point, you have to know your edits were NPOV. Flowanda | Talk 23:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]