Lidia smith

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Louise Glover has been reverted.

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \byoutube\.com (links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-nrdrm3rrg). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections.

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Lidia smith, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us a bit about yourself

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! Marek.69 ^talk 01:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Louise Glover

Due to the fact that you removed several references from the Louise Glover article as well as other info, I have reverted all of your edits to that article. Dismas|^(talk) 03:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's take this edit by edit. You changed so much stuff that I think it's the best way to spell out all the issues that you introduced. And please read the policies that I'm linking to so that you may better understand my position on your edits.

1. In this diff, you removed info about a couple legal problems that Glover has run into and said that these were "irrelevant". Legal issues of the subject of the article are not irrelevant. Secondly, they were widely reported in the press given Glover's level of celebrity. One of the links is from the BBC which is one of the most respected news agencies in the world. Even on this side of the Atlantic. So, it would be hard to get any more of a reliable source than that. (see: Wikipedia:Reliable Sources)
2. In this edit, you removed quite a bit of info as well as a few sources, again, to trusted news organizations. You changed or removed a significant amount of information and in your edit summary you claimed that it was a "miner delete [sic]". It wasn't anywhere near "minor" in my opinion. Entire paragraphs, with references, were taken out.
3. This edit is where you removed the references section of the article. By removing the {{reflist}} tag, you took out the tag that allows all the references to be shown. Without that, the ref tags in the rest of the article don't work. Your refs, refs other people added in, all of them. (see: Wikipedia:Footnotes#How to use)
4. In this edit you removed every single reference in the entire Early Life section. This includes the reference for her birth date and birth location for which references are required according to Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. (see: WP:BLP) Additionally, you introduced spelling errors (louise in place of Louise). By the way, last names are preferred in biographical articles. First names are too familiar. For instance, in Tony Blair's article, you won't see "Tony did this and Tony did that". You'll see "Blair did this and Blair did that". And finally, it's clear that you just copied and pasted without regards to copy editing since you copied the [3] references note. (see the last paragraph just after the words "she said". Again, this was a major rewording that you marked as a minor edit.
5. In this edit, you again marked it as a minor edit although you changed a significant amount of info. Also, for the second time, you broke the formatting of the article by removing the = marks that make something stand out as a section heading. (see: Help:Section) And again, you removed references without replacing them with other sources, removed various typographical marks which format the article correctly (e.g. titles of magazines should be in italics), removed links to other articles (e.g. everything in [[square brackets]]), etc.
6. And your last edit, this one, is the only edit where your edit summary was true. You stated that it was a "small edit" and that is true. You only removed one sentence.

If you're going to make sweeping changes to an article, it's best to explain the reasons for it on the article's talk page which can be found by clicking on the "discussion" tab of the article in question. (see: Wikipedia:Talk page) Claiming that things are simply "wrong" or "inaccurate" however is not enough. You must provide valid reasons for your position.

If you need any more help, let me know or discuss changes at the article's talk page. Dismas|^(talk) 14:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Committing acts of vandalism (page blanking and such) is not the way to get things changed around here. In order for Ms. Glover to get her article changed, it would help if she read WP:AUTO and the policies linked from that page. Now, please stop vandalizing the article by following the rules! Dismas|^(talk) 01:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

re: edits to Louise Glover

I appreciate that you've got Louise's best interests at heart, but I'm not entirely convinced you understand how Wikipedia works. I'd advise that you take some time to understand WP policies and procedures before attempting any major edits like this again. Bobyllib (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to delete this article, please expound here, and an editor will file a request for deletion discussion if you can provide a valid reason. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 01:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• All articles have talk pages. If you have issues with the Louise Glover article, the talk page—Talk:Louise Glover—is the place to bring them up. Note that the article is rated as a good article and has lots of independent sources, so you will need to provide sourcing likewise for any of the assertions you are making. —C.Fred (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Specifically regarding the double mention of the legal problems: I thought this was a bit excessive at first. However, after reading the talk page, I found where it was discussed, and mentioning the major points from the article is a requirement of the Good Article standards on Wikipedia. That's why a digest of the legal issues is in the intro as well as the main section of the article covering them. —C.Fred (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Additionally, you'll want to see the guidelines on WP:Conflict of interest, since you (claim that you) are Glover's manager. —C.Fred (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you believe that a legal action is warranted, you may contact our information team at info-en@wikimedia.org and they may forward it to our legal counsel or a more appropriate venue. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Your only real option

I am not sure what you find objectionable about the Louise Glover article, as it s fairly well sourced, though it could be slightly improved. In any case, could you please send a well-written email (You say you are a manager, right? Please use proper English) to "info-en-q@wikimedia.org" (sans quotes) and it'll be dealt with by the Wikipedia-response team for situations like these. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not threatening just asking what to do cause I'm going round in circles and have wasted my whole weekly evenings trying to make this right... And I'm tired and upset over this matter so don't get smart about spelling, no need for that in this situation. And your as you wrote as a header is wrote wrong, it should be the header don't make a sentence... but it doesn't matter if I spell write with bag grammar or not, but it does in your case as your part of this massive site, so (well-written( in your case is a lot more important than in mine.

I pointed out five days ago that major changes to the article should be discussed on the talk page for the article. You've also had this explained many times on your own talk page. Yet every time, you've ignored everyone and tried to make your own sweeping changes to the article. Dismas|^(talk) 03:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

All's I have asked from day one is who to speak to about getting the whole louise glover page deleted. Please it makes no difference to this site her not being on here, but a world of difference to her life. She needs to get back on her feet this website refers to all sorts of nonsense that don't add up and are poorly written and the site is repetitive and liable in places. So its best that the louise glover page ois gone for good please give this girl a break.

Regards, Lidia smith.

P.S who do I speak with about getting louise glovers page deleted. Louise has said she will come on here and say what's true and what's not.

I have told you (as did Juliancolton) who to email. Please go through with that process; there is nothing more we pseudonymous volunteers can do. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)