User talk:Adèle Fisher

Please review the following and disclose whether you have any relationship with any of the people or organizations mentioned in the articles you have recently been editing.

Conflict of interest WP:COI SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no link with the people of books cited. I just try to add information lacking on that topic.
Adèle Fisher (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I asked about the organizations. SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You asked about people or organisations. I have no link with the people or organisations cited. I just try to add information lacking on that topic.
Adèle Fisher (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

You need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines so that you can continue editing here and not be blocked or banned. SPECIFICO talk 16:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe you could welcome new user in a more constructive way (improve rather than delete content)?
Adèle Fisher (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Augustus M. Kelley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fairfield, New Jersey

Bloomberg Businessweek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bloomberg

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've undone your revert as it was unexplained. There's no need for a separate article on this particular referendum. If it's restored again, I'll be nominating it for deletion. You're welcome to expand on the topic at Swiss referendums, 2018 though. Cheers, Number 57 13:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really disappointing to see you've restored the article again, but as promised I've nominated it for deletion. It would be appreciated if you could explain why you ignored the advice to concentrate on the main article and insisted on restoring this one. Thanks, Number 57 13:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nominating AfD. The sourcing in all this editor's work is atrocious and all the content appears to be promoting the fringe monetary crusade of Green politics deflationists. If you have time, you might look at this editor's other contributions, most of which are problematic. SPECIFICO talk 14:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outside and beyond the ongoing AfC (on which I already commented), could I please ask why you think the article carries a non-notable subject? It's one thing to know, understand, and believe that the proposal is wrong (laughably wrong, as a matter of fact, but some other time about this) and quite another thing to ask for the deletion of an article related to the proposal! Let's not confuse validity with notability (in this case, notoriety). -The Gnome (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you undo your revert on the talk page. Read the material at the link I provided in the header to this section. You may not post off-topic promotional content on the article talk page. If it's valid content, place it in the article. Otherwise you're apt to get blocked from editing and that would be too bad. SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that deleting my sourced content with 'unsourced' as a justification was a recommended behaviour? Following your comment, I changed my message there to make its purpose more obvious. However, I do not see in which way it could be considered as off-topic (both in its previous and current versions). I did not find any convincing explanation about that specifically. Do you see the reference to those two newspaper articles as 'harmful or prohibited material'?
Adèle Fisher (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Attempts to game the system are not helpful and are easily recognized by other editors. SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Do you dislike the way I try to improve things after you criticise them? Adèle Fisher (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Your recent editing history 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.

Please undo your last revert. WP:3RR applies on all pages here, and you may be blocked from editing. SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your recent edits have been a bit of a giveaway. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soapamalkanmaime. Number 57 13:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Swiss sovereign money referendum, 2018 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiss sovereign money referendum, 2018 (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]