User talk:CB125J

May 2018

Hello, I'm Philip Cross. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Oliver Kamm have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Philip Cross (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which may apply to some of your edits. Philip Cross (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Oliver Kamm 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. Scr★pIron^IV 11:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Express citation

On the Frank Williams profile article you have reinserted into the Edward Sinclair article. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources where you will notice the Daily Express is held, for sourcing purposes, in much the same regard as the Daily Mail. It isn't a reliable source and the articles it publishes are always liable to be removed by any editor if they have been cited on Wikipedia.

What relevance does a pantomime nearly 42 years ago which didn't happen have to this article? The article omits where this pantomime was to take place. So its notability cannot be determined either. Philip Cross (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- You noted in edit 23 Feb. 2019 that the Express is not RS, but you didn't remove it then, so there seemed no sensible reason for you to remove it several months later. The relevance is that the little bit of Edward Sinclair information adds a little interest to an otherwise rather brief entry. CB125J (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right it adds a "little interest" to a sadly rather restricted article. I added a better source template in February (which you have not disputed in your revert) instead of deleting the citation to allow for the legion of the series' fans to resolve the issue. The fairly numerous Dad's Army books must contain more information about Sinclair's career, or perhaps Frank Williams in his autobiography gives more details to confirm the notability of the aborted pantomime. It is doubtless possible to resolve this issue. Philip Cross (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]