User talk:Vinson wese

Vinson wese, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Vinson wese! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Your recent editing history at Emmelie de Forest shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. that source does not meet the guidelines! me and BabbaQ have both reverted your changes several times. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 00:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

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. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 01:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marlene A. Eilers Koenig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royalty (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I particularly liked the part

She didn't ask her subjects if they could be included in her works either... Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I generally think people who publish books need to accept that they may become persons of some public interest and that there is coverage of them, eg. here. Vinson wese (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, Winson vese. Today, Emmelie de Forest is in the public eye. Apparently my warning about inserting irrelevant and negative material (which you promptly removed) didn't have any effect. On the contrary, the article is in worse shape now. The text you keep re-adding stating that the claims of royal descent were "originally used as a part of her marketing strategy" is a snide accusation which is completely unsupported by the galaxy of sources you have amassed. The newspaper sources (which all more or less quote one another) state that the Danish radio (DR) originally intended to use her supposed royal descent, but withdrew it: "- Det var oplagt at bruge historien, men nu viser det sig, at vi slet ikke har brug for denne her indgang, fordi alle er syge efter at komme til at tale med Emmelie, og hun er kæmpe favorit, siger Jan Lagermand Lundme og påpeger, at Emmelie de Forest har handlet i god tro og blot har fortalt historien, som i årevis er blevet fortalt i familien." In drawing the conclusion that it was part of her marketing strategy, something that's not even hinted at in the sources, you have totally ignored the word and the spirit of our BLP policy, which I have earlier referred you to. But it's not only tweaking "the" to "her", which happened recently, that's grossly inappropriate. I don't know whether her father is alive or not, but Wikipedia has absolutely no reason to describe his family history in the terms that you do. ("Commoner", indeed!) He's got a right to privacy, same as you or me, as he's not a notable person. More generally, the whole section about E de F's family connections (rather misleadingly termed "Private life") and her claims to royal descent is WP:UNDUE, and I have removed it per WP:BLP. Looking at the history, I see how persistently you have been adding this material against practically unanimous opposition, against cogent, policy-compliant arguments, and against the BLP policy. Don't reinsert any of it. Please be aware that you are now very close to a long block. Bishonen | talk 10:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC).