User talk:Glennconti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Neutralitytalk 19:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration committee mailing list[edit] may be interested in your experience. SashiRolls (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Glennconti. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest[edit]

Do you have a conflict of interest on the subject of star naming? In particular, are you connected with any company that names stars? ~ Rob13Talk 03:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind, I found the answer: you've said you wrote a press release written by the operator of a star-naming company. [1] Do not edit the articles of your competitors, especially to insert negative information. If you continue to do so, you're very likely to be blocked. ~ Rob13Talk 04:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello Sir. Thank you for your bringing your weight to the ISR article. However, just because I am an expert in the field of Commercial Star Naming does not preclude me from editing articles about such, in fact it qualifies me. As you found with less than 30 minutes of your time, I have nothing to hide as far as my name and associations. I have been involved with the ISR article for 6 years, I think in your brief encounter with me you have come to some erroneous conclusions about me. Please sir do some things for me 1) Show me how I have entered negative information about the company ISR that would warrant your warnings of me. When you find none, you will see my edits to the page in question have been to further Wikipedia principles and provide a balanced view of the industry of commercial star naming as counter point to the views of many astronomers/scientists that would wish to bash ISR and the industry. So, I am not negative to ISR but balanced in my edits. It was never my intention to tear down ISR but provide edits, when it is a NPOV, that support providing factual information about the industry of star naming in general that are not-negative. In your brief review, you have gotten me all wrong. And, 2) Show me where it says in Wiki rules emphatically without exception that if you are associated with a competitor of some entity that has a wiki article that you cannot edit that wiki article. I doubt that you will be able to because I have been acting in good faith to improve Wikipedia, as that is my motivation, I'm certain they have carved out some exception for me. Finally, 3) do you have any conflicts of interest? That is, what has piqued your interest in this subject? Thank you so much. Glennconti (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@Glennconti: See WP:COI. Your association with a for-profit company directly competing against the company whose article you've heavily edited, including edits to the negative "Legitimacy" section, warrants the warning. Note also that United States law has strict regulations on undisclosed advertising, meaning that introducing text favorable to your company in articles that do not contain a statement disclosing that fact may be illegal. European Union law also frowns upon what you did, with a past case of a competitor editing a company's German Wikipedia article being decided unfavorably for the competitor. I do not have a conflict of interest on this topic. ~ Rob13Talk 15:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


Wikipedia talk pages are not fora for discussing what you perceive to be liberal bias among sources, nor are they fora for discussing your belief that Wikipedia editors have a liberal bias. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing proposed improvements to the articles they relate to. Unless you have a proposal to improve the article based on sources and policy, please refrain from launching into digressive argumentation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center 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.
You're at 3RR; another revert breaks that hard line. If you want to open a new discussion proposing policy-and-source-based changes to the article, you're welcome to do so. Your previous post doesn't do that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Glennconti reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: ). Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

If you are not careful you will get a ban, suggest how to improve the article and you might get somewhere, soapbox and you will be gone. Article talk pages are not for general discussions about Wikipedia faults. NPOV forum [2] is where we discus general NPOV issues. RSN [3] is wqhere we discus general issues about reliability of sources used in articles. Slatersteven (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, but I thought I was being careful.Glennconti (talk) 08:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
YOU made over three reverts in one day, that broke the rules against making more then three reverts. I fail to see how that was being careful.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
From the wording in WP it basically says don't edit war... resolve on the Talk page via discussion. This led me to believe I could Talk/Edit freely on the Talk page. It is total news to me that another editor can shut discussion down just by claiming "Soapbox". The editors that "own" that article told me all I could do on the Talk page was suggest an edit and then only if I had an reliable source. That is not my experience. I am an editor in good standing with full rights to edit. Frankly, I did not think edit warring applied to Talk pages.Glennconti (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC), specifically "A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space." (my emphasis).Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Then I have learned 2 valuable things from this situation. 1) Claim "Soapbox" if you don't like the way a discussion is going and you have at one or two other editors to back you up. 2) Use the undo link very judiciously. Glennconti (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
If you cannot see how what you wrote was not soapboxing you are not going to be an editor in good standing with full rights for very much longer.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
For your enlightenment [4] Specifically " However, article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject" and [5] specifically "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it.".Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
"Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view." I am in complete agreement with what is said here when describing Soapboxing. Ironic that these words are used against me. That was exactly the point of my misinterpreted Talk page post. Glennconti (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but you are supposed to make specific suggestions. Not a general rant about the state of the POV of the article (and in fact you do not talk about the artifice, but a general issue with sources). Your rant was about a general issue with Wikipedia, not the article. No where do you offer one suggestion or criticize one single cited fact. What you do is criticize Wikipedia in general and fellow editors accusing them of bias. That is venting your personal feelings about Wikipedia and its edds, hast is soapboxing. If you do not see how that is soapboxing (under Wikipedias polices) then (and it dopes not matter how clever you think your debating tactics are) you are going to be a perma block eventually. And at the rate you are going you are not going to be missed.
This is just a warning, take it or leave it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Sir. I will certainly take it. I came close to the fire, learned somethings, and thanks to you will not get burned. You have been very fair and I appreciate your time (although I regret having to have been an imposition.)

od Fair enough,I might also suggest you go the the edit war discussion and admit your error and agree to abide by policy. That is a request for admin action, and it is they who need to see you get that what you did was wrong, and that you are saying you will no do it again.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Help needed[edit]


Would you be willing to help me out by checking through the following list of statistics and other references, and inserting the ones that are appropriate and sufficiently reliable into related Wikipedia pages?

I am kept extremely busy constantly managing one of the world's most popular entertainment wikis, so I regrettably do not have the time to do so, and am also rather inexperienced with editing articles covering more serious subjects.

I would really appreciate the help. David A (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Glennconti. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)