User talk:RegionalGirl137

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, RegionalGirl137. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Mickey Dolenz, 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, clients, 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 Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
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. You've been ID'd by HomecomingQueenEmily (talk) as someone who is connected to Mickey Dolenz professionally. If this is accurate, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before editing the Dolenz article again. Thanks. Wes sideman (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not connected to MICKY Dolenz (note no E) personally or professionally in any way. I do know who Homecoming Queen Emily is as she is a member of many other online communities that serve to document other popular artists and their careers. I have read the guidelines and am well aware of these facts. Are we skipping over the involvement of others who actually DO work for the subject though on these conflicts of interests? It seems that you would welcome informed, current and accurate information on this site. The fact that it seems you do not welcome this type of content is disconcerting at best. Additionally, I have attempted to make another referenced edit on the same page and it was almost immediately reverted. It is clear that there is a bias toward both myself and Emily for some unknown reason.

While I will not speak for Emily, I will state regarding myself, I am not employed by Micky Dolenz and never have been. There is no valid conflict of interest here. I had a more recent photo than what was there. I added it. It was removed for no valid reason. Furthermore, I corrected biographical information. BASIC information, added a valid reference and everything--someone came along and IMMEDIATELY removed that edit. There is a problem here. The page has inaccurate information and it should be corrected to reflect accurate. Please explain why random people with zero credentials on the subject are allowed to override correct information when it is added. RG137 18:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

You aren't even spelling Micky's name correctly. I do not know Mr. Dolenz personally. I know of him and worked with David Jones who was a member of the same group therefore I have no conflict of interest with Dolenz. I am only trying to update the photo with a recent acceptable photo. It seems that the current photo was obstructed by sun glasses and the other in question was somehow outdated even though it was, by the consensus of most, a better photo. I then added a photo of my own that was taken a few months back and it too was removed with no actual reasoning other than the same bias that I have observed from WesSideman on this topic. Additionally, Andrew Sandoval has made edits all the page and CURRENTLY is employed by Rhino Records, Micky Dolenz and so on but no one is calling conflict of interest in the same manner you are trying to call out on others trying to edit this topic. RG137 17:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

To respond to the above--you will notice that I have now been accused of using a different account to respond on the Micky Dolenz page. This is NOT my account, I do not have more than one account and every single accusation made by this handful of so called admins is incorrect. I have been cited for some sort of harassment I cannot find nor has been cited, I have been blocked for editing and citing a reference which was labeled an "edit war" and now the facts are proving to be in my favor yet I am still blocked? No. This is wrong and I want it made right regardless of whether I plan on editing a page or not because this shows up as a matter of record available to the public. Either cite the harassment you claim and prove that I am using multiple accounts or unblock it as you should.

Infobox parameters[edit]

Please see the documentation at Template:Infobox person. The field for children should be a number; if a child is independently notable (has an article), the name can be listed. There is a reason that two different editors have reverted your change. Also, please do not edit war. If you make an edit that another editor reverts, please open a discussion on the article's talk page instead. Schazjmd (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both persons who are attempting to update and correct this page on Micky Dolenz are being harassed and bullied I suspect because we have validated, verified and accurate information to contribute and the gatekeeper over there is just a control obsessed individual on a power trip. Still not one word said about any other potential conflicts of interest going on over there though...and if we make other attempts to edit or change anything, we are going to be locked down. That's not how you should be operating! That only serves to invalidate the entire site and its information. You should welcome QUALIFIED and VALID information which you are not. Instead, you are trying to shut it out. RG137 18:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023[edit]

Your recent editing history at Micky Dolenz 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. Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See, this right here is why I have a problem with what is going on. I am not in an 'edit war' I made a change to try and point out the hideousness that is going on over there. The information that I changed were the accurate names of Micky's children. I then referenced this edit with a valid source--being Dolenz's own autobiography published in 1993. IMMEDIATELY the edit was removed without a valid reason. This is part of basic biographical information. Aside from the original issue that was brought up with the recent photographs It seems that we are being bullied by a few who do not welcome accurate and valid changes and that's unfortunate considering the masses who utilize this site will not have access to current photos and complete information even on a basic level. Furthermore, those denying edits seem rather unqualified to do so as they have no background or education on the subject matter. I didn't repeatedly change the content. I changed it ONCE, it was reverted so I went back in and added a reference to the change. It was IMMEDIATELY reverted again and now I am being bullied for it. RG137 18:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

You're not being bullied. Multiple editors are trying to convey to you the policies, guidelines and style for constructive edits. If you would take the time to read the comments and the pages linked in them, it would help you learn how to accomplish what you want on Wikipedia. Schazjmd (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. You are edit warring. And that first time you WERE reverted with a valid reason: "non-notable". "Notable" was even linked: you could have clicked on it. Here, second revert: "only add names of children that have associated articles". Another valid reason, because that is what we do here: no non-notables. (These are living people and we cannot have unverified information, esp. not names.) Third revert: "rv... only names with biographies on Wikipedia". So that's three times, three times with the same reason. Maybe you should consider that those three different editors understand our policies better than you do, and that you should listen to them. And I haven't even begun about your likely conflict of interest. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This block prompted by your last attempt to harass other users. If you continue that, I will also revoke your access to this talk page. In the meantime, you can think about what it is that you want on this website, and phrase an unblock request accordingly. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to update this request with the following information--it has come to my attention that a few are NOW attempting to state that the two accounts who originally attempted to change the photo in the first place are one int he same. I did not harass anyone (please show me where I did if you are going to accuse me of such!) Additionally, please check the IP addresses of those two screen names. You will find that they are in two different parts of the country and are not in fact the same person as has been falsely stated by the same who you are protecting from some unknown harassment. Please get your facts straight next time you decide to ban someone for absolutely NO valid reason. Let it be known now that once again that misinformation and outright lies are being spread here on wikipedia. I see that a checkuser has been brought in to examine this--I will expect this to be reversed once the results are in from that....as I only have ONE account, this one.... RG137 16:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RegionalGirl137 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not make any further edits to the page in question and yet you have blocked me? I ceased editing when I was accused of being in an 'edit war' and attempted to explain the situation and cite examples. I was in fact being bullied. For that reason, I am requesting my account be unblocked. It could not have possibly been accurately reviewed. This is one sided and targeted. Furthermore, my account has not been active in 14 years and I have no further intentions of trying to edit the Micky Dolenz page in the future or any other ones for that matter. Your sole decision to block me was arbitrary and capricious at best. I was attempting to point out issues with the so called team. I was not harassing any other users in doing so. RG137 19:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Since you say you don't intend to make any edits, there is no need to remove the block since blocks only prevent editing. 331dot (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

UTRS appeal #68863 [edit]

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]