Moving On With Brit

Welcome Moving On With Brit!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 48,200,710 registered editors!

Hello, Moving On With Brit. Welcome to Wikipedia!

I'm S0091, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

To help get you started, you may find these useful: Introduction to Wikipedia The Five Pillars (fundamental principles) of Wikipedia Ask a Question about How to Use Wikipedia

When editing, follow the 3 Core Content Policies: 1. Neutral point of view: represent significant views fairly 2. Verifiability: claims should cite reliable, published sources 3. No original research: no originality; reference published sources

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.

Sincerely, S0091 (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)   (Leave me a message)

Jerry Lee Lewis

Hi Moving On With Brit, I reverted (removed) your edits to the article because the source you cited is not considered a reliable source. Fandom is a wiki so is the content is user generated, thus does not have editorial oversight, fact-checking and the like. The same is true for Wikipedia. You can read more at WP:NOTRS. No worries! You are new and it does take some time to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. :) S0091 (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

New message from S0091

Hello, Moving On With Brit. You have new messages at S0091's talk page.
Message added 17:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

S0091 (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of interest policy

Hello, Moving On With Brit. We welcome your contributions, but 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 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 competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Please respond

Hi Moving On With Brit. Can you please respond to the messages above? Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

What do you want me to respond to? I left you a message on your talk page.

Thanks for responding.

You wrote on my talk page [1]:

Hi - how so - you've essentially just revered all of the edits that were done across the board - including where I've fixed broken links and ::corrected information that was incorrect.

In some cases, someone took out the source for multiple points yet kept the source for one item - which makes no sense.

What exactly constitutes a "quality citation link" and I'm concerned about the comment about relying heavily on promotional sources - I don't have affiliation with 70 plus companies.

Nikki

And you've editted the messages left. All updates made since 3/30 wiped out accross the board.

Thanks for responding. I think it best we discuss it here, where others can find it more easily.

Just to make it clear, when I came across your editing, other editors had already removed many of your references and even left you a message above [2]. Don't misrepresent the situation as being between just you and me. Thank you.

At this point, I'm seeing a few edits of yours that haven't been removed. Most of what I had left in place have subsequently been removed by other editors.

So, do you have a conflict of interest with any of the links you have added? --Hipal (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't see all of the edits (aka who actually reverted them) but you replied today so not misrepresenting anything from my viewpoint. Based on the below definition of CIO - no I don't believe I do.

External roles and relationships Shortcut WP:EXTERNALREL While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest (similar to how a judge's primary role as an impartial adjudicator is undermined if they are married to the defendant.)

Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be an autobiography or written by the subject's spouse. There can be a COI when writing on behalf of a competitor or opponent of the page subject, just as there is when writing on behalf of the page subject.

Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance below on financial conflict of interest and on citing your work. SMEs are expected to make sure that their external roles and relationships in their field of expertise do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia.

COI is not simply bias Further information: WP:ADVOCACY Shortcut WP:COINOTBIAS Determining that someone has a COI is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity. A COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI. Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict.

Why is conflict of interest a problem? On Wikipedia, editors with a conflict of interest who unilaterally add material tend to violate Wikipedia's content and behavioral policies and guidelines. The content they add is typically unsourced or poorly sourced and often violates the neutral point of view policy by being promotional and omitting negative information. They may edit war to retain content that serves their external interest. They may overuse primary sources or non-independent sources, and they may give too much weight to certain ideas.

Actual, potential and apparent COI Shortcuts WP:ACTUALCOI WP:POTENTIALCOI WP:APPARENTCOI An actual COI exists when an editor has a COI with respect to a certain judgment and is in a position where the judgment must be exercised.

Example: A business owner has an actual COI if he edits articles and engages in discussions about that business. A potential COI exists when an editor has a COI with respect to a certain judgment but is not in a position where the judgment must be exercised.

Example: A business owner has a potential COI with respect to articles and discussions about that business, but she has no actual COI if she stays away from those pages. An apparent COI exists when there is reason to believe that an editor has a COI.

Example: Editors have an apparent COI if they edit an article about a business, and for some reason they appear to be the business owner or in communication with the business owner, although they may actually have no such connection. Apparent COI raises concern within the community and should be resolved through discussion whenever possible.

So you have no relationship with britonthemove.com? --Hipal (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I do but that has not violated any of the terms listed - so no conflict of interest per the guidelines. Is the issue (or concern) for me to add to my page my affiliation with BOTM? And PS, I am not a paid linker. If that is what is being implied. Of 70 plus edits and corrections 3 total if that linked to BOTM and to credible and superior acurate content where none existed. I've seen tons of articles where the organization links to itself - especially when the content is superior. I seriously don't see how someone has undone all of these edits - and I am not seeing a conflict of interest or bias. Nikki

Thanks. You've added britonthemove.com as a reference multiple times. In the notice above, it says "avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);". Do you see the problem? --Hipal (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Multiple is subjective 3/70 is little and "avoid" does not say or mean never. I read the Spam guidelines here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam did not violate any of it - so no I do not see the problem. Nikki

I don't think I should try to address this further just between the two of us. I'll notify you after I've started a discussion. --Hipal (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User_Moving_On_With_Brit. --Hipal (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Just a comment on britonthemove.com: whether there's a COI or not, it simply isn't a reliable source. Wikipedia articles should use academic sources when possible; reliable public news media sources can be used (see WP:SOURCETYPES). Britonthemove.com is a commercial website that says it does not make any warranties about the completeness, reliability, and accuracy of this information and declares You should assume the owner of this website and/or blog has an affiliate relationship and/or another material connection, to any suppliers of goods and services that may be discussed here, and may be compensated for showing ads or recommending products or services or linking to the supplier’s website. and is not a reliable source for content in Wikipedia articles. Schazjmd (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I am at a loss here. Commercial sites are as reliable as any - they often show up on Wikipedia and all have affiliate relationships - ALL - there is no such thing as an unmonetized commercial site. You might not know this but the author is educated and researches all data points! In some cases the content there is more reliable and factual than some of the stuff written on Wikipedia (SOME as clearly not as big and on specific topics). Regardless...... I am beyond past this. I updated a ton of content with credible citations - all from the last two days were reverted by two editors. So, I disagree and find it beyond ironic that I am being targeted as a spammer after relentless hours of updating crap content that needed the help. If the issue really is with me having added links to content (3) that I am associated with then why weren't those edits reverted vs. every edit over the last two days. Nikki

Commercial sites are as reliable as any No, they aren't. If we can get beyond your conflict of interest, you'll need to learn what are and are not reliable sources. WP:RS is the page to start from. WP:RSN is the main page to discuss and find past discussions on reliability. WP:RSP is a list of some of the commonly discussed references. --Hipal (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

So my recourse is to send in a list of commercial sites that have been deemed acceptable? Cause there are thousands. And when you say "your conflict of interest" - I already stated there is not one. You asked me if I am associated with brit on the move and I said yes - the truth. I also told you that I did not violate the conflict of interest of spam guidelines. Can we move past that? You are targeting me for some apparent reason and it's without merit. Feel free to revert every contribution I ever made. Clearly, I've contributed zero value. And, clearly the only contributions welcome are those of an educational .edu or government .gov nature. Shoot, all news outlets are monetized but they show up all over the place on Wiki - can we say bias. User: Moving_On_With_Brit Moving On With Brit (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Signing your posts

You need to star signing your posts, like everyone else here does. this can be done by typing ~~~~ at the end of your post. "Nikki" means little, we need the username and the time of the post in order for it to be clear. And now I will sign my post: --- Possibly (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

DONE Moving On With Brit (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy notice - SPI

Your editing is being discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brit On the Move. Please consider joining the discussion. --Hipal (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit-warring and vandalism

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Albert Goldman. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Please note that removing your own edits to Wikipedia as a protest over policy is disruptive and could result in your being blocked or banned. (See [3] through [4]) --Hipal (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hipal/Ronz (whatever you call yourself these days). How many claims do you have open? Is it that people don't typically challenge you? Or is it your change of name and consistent assertion of authority similar to that of Northern Korea that intimidates the average person from challenging you? I've stated MULTIPLE times - I have done nothing wrong, violated no rules as "legally written out here" and yet you continue to harass me. When will you stop? Seriously, this is enough...... You are a spam editor - let's investigate that.

Courtesy notice - ANI

Your editing is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Moving_On_With_Brit. (It is a requirement that editors be notified of discussions about them. ) --Hipal (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Acutely aware, and you should be aware that I am refuting your bogus claims here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Moving_On_With_Brit

And can you even get it correct? Multiple accounts - I have one!

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Brit On the Move per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brit On the Move. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GirthSummit _(blether) 06:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

But of course! No one likes the truth and censorship is the only way! Good for Wikipedia, another confirmed source that can't be trusted:) Multiple accounts - BULL. This whole nonsense started because one user attacked me. A user who is under multiple names and has a history of blasting and defaming people! Sockpuppet - you should be ashamed - that's not even close to what occurred!Moving On With Brit (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with censorship - I'm not clear on what it is you want to write that I would be censoring. This block is in place because you appear to be using this account to evade a block on another account (Brit On the Move), which is prohibited; you have also more than once made statements that I view as being in contravention of our no legal threats policy. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Not even close. I am blocking nothing - I have nothing to block. I have been chased here and will defend myself. In a nutshell, to make this easy, my error was not disclosing a relationship to the "a - singular one" website. When asked, I confirmed this. Since then it has been a full-on witch hunt with acquisitions of spamming, lying, and other crappy insults. I've defended myself, in particular against a bogus editor who reams all. And, yes I doubled down on legal - just as the community doubled down on shut up or put up.

At this point, I really don't give a rat's. It's crystal clear that there is bias, censorship, groupthink, and bully mentality. I'm so past high school it's an embarrassment to be associated with this. However, it's another valid lesson learned in life about how a few control the masses:) Nikki Moving On With Brit (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

No one said you blocked anything. I don't know where you got that from. What was said is that you are clearly the same editor as Brit On the Move. This editor was blocked back in 2019. If you want to edit, you will need to log back in to the Brit On the Move account and request an unblock via that account following the conditions that were outlined when that account was blocked. You cannot just create a new account and edit when your previous account was blocked except under one specific case which doesn't apply here. Nil Einne (talk) 06:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I would add that at this stage, considering you did create this account, and continued the behaviour that got the previous account blocked by which I mean you continued to link to your website in articles and without properly disclosing it, it's likely to be difficult to convince anyone that you can be trusted to abide by our policies and guidelines. I would suggest if you did want to edit again, it would be better to follow WP:Standard offer. This means waiting 6 months from now without making any edits under any accounts or with IPs. Then make a request for an unblock under the previous account. Such a request would include disclosing your conflict of interest and how you will manage it going forward and disclosing all other accounts you used including this one. You will also need to withdraw any suggestion you are considering legal action against Wikipedia or it's contributors. Nil Einne (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

OMG, this is beyond out of control. In 2019 "I" cited a website I am associated with and got kicked out immediately. No one has brought this up as the "issue" since I re-joined, rather they have accused me of self-promotion and shady editing. I take offense to both. I've tried - I've edited and corrected many pages - like over 80! All reverted - mostly due to the across-the-board witch hunt. The rest I personally reverted the citations on (about 9 edits). Pull the #'s - it's 4/1 min.

I am not apologizing for reverting edits. All of my edits were reverted with malice by other editors - I just finished what they started. For example, I updated 19 edits on one page and no link to a site I am associated with. All reverted under a wide brush of bull.

I tried to add value to this community, I failed. I am perfectly alright with this. This is not a place for me. It's riddled with bias, nonsense, and overzealous want to be "editorial chiefs". My life is less complicated than this and I have zero desire to edit, participate, or even read - I am done. And, I am not retracting my right to seek legal opinon.

The shady biased regulators win again, such is life :)

Enjoy today...... I will (when I get up....lol).

Nikki

Nikki, thank you for the above confirmation that the older account was also yours. The Terms of Use of this website explicitly prohibit you from creating a new account if an earlier one has been blocked - it's in Section 10, 'Management of Websites'. As such, any editing you have done under this account was in violation of the Terms of Use. You remain free to request that the original account be unblocked, but you may not create new accounts to allow you to get around the original block. That nobody complained about it when you first started editing is likely because nobody noticed the connection: you did not disclose it yourself, or seek the permission that would be required by the Terms of Use. Once it was noticed, a block was inevitable.

Since you are continuing to make legal threats, I am now revoking your ability to edit this talk page. You still have recourse to the WP:UTRS system to request an unblock, should you change your mind about no longer wishing to contribute here. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 07:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)