User talk:Tim121212

National Party[edit]

Hello Tim121212, We welcome your contributions, but where editors have an external relationship with the people, places or things, the conflict of interest (COI) policies apply. Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or clients;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose any conflict of interest, as you have already done, when discussing affected articles (per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

Please also read WP:EW, WP:RS and WP:NPA. (Simply declaring that an otherwise reliable source is wrong or biased, without providing evidence and only relying on first-hand experience, is a form of WP:OR that isn't in keeping with norms. Describing other editors as "uneducated" or "[out to] make the party look bad", simply for restoring or adding such reliable sources, is also not on. And an example of why we have COI guidelines [just because you hold a POV or self-acknowledged bias, and another editor edits in a way that appears counter to that bias, does not mean that they hold an opposite bias; It is just as likely that they are simply and dispassionately upholding project norms. See also WP:AGF.].) Guliolopez (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at National Party (Ireland, 2016) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have been reverted by no less than four different editors over the last day. If you revert again, you will be reported. Please instead engage on the Talk page, as you have been asked to do. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023[edit]

Hello. As has been noted above, if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest are expected to:

disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles;
avoid editing articles about yourself, company or organisation;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles;
comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer or affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms work for which you receive compensation.

Also, editing for the purpose of publicising, promoting or advocating for anyone or anything is not permitted. Nor is Wikipedia a free webhost for (or extension to the website of) any organisation with which you may have an association. Guliolopez (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at National Party (Ireland, 2016), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Bestagon ⬡ 15:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Party (Ireland, 2016): election promo[edit]

Friendly request to stop adding election promo. We are writing a neutral encyclopedia, not an election flyer. The Banner talk 19:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not election promo, they have eleven principles now not nine I was updating it? Why is that being removed? Please let me know. Tim121212 (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion, but we are building a neutral encyclopedia based on reliable, independent sources. The Banner talk 19:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not biassed, its from their party website about their principles, why can that not be added Tim121212 (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You think that their own website with provide neutral information? We need independent, reliable sources. The Banner talk 23:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think we're having two different conversations here..

You want a reliable source on their policies, well I quite literally gave a source that shows their principles on their website.. hows that not reliable? This makes no sense, how can you say a party explaining its own principles is not a reliable source about that parties principles.. what the fuck? Tim121212 (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: we need sources that are both reliable AND independent. The Banner talk 23:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the party says they support a policy such as lets say reducing tax on cars, would you not add it in? All because you don't have an independent source doesnt make it untrue. Tim121212 (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that should not be added without independent sources. It would not be the first time that a party says A but acts B as stated by independent sources. The Banner talk 20:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]