195.171.101.40

August 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Jamie Milligan. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent edit to BES Utilities

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from BES Utilities without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 09:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

January 2016

Hello, I'm Ubiquity. I noticed that you recently removed some content from BES Utilities without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I have restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to BES Utilities with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Bentogoa (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

BES Utilities

Please stop blanking the "Controversy" section at BES Utilities. As currently written, its content is not defamatory (which requires that the statements are false). It includes only a short description of the criticism and official government investigation, and I believe it is consistent with Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view policy and its presence in the article is justified. Under what reasoning do you believe that the investigation should not be mentioned at all? —Laoris (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you recently removed some content from BES Utilities  with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, 195.171.101.40. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article BES Utilities, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
• instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. —Laoris (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

BES Utilities

Do not remove wp:reliably sourced (RS), wp:cited information from articles, such as your edit here, without a good reason. You gave this wp:edit summary: unsourced negative claim. That was an untrue statement as it is RS. Blogs, forum postings, and other wp:selfpublished sources are generally not considered RS. Jim1138 (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at BES Utilities. Jim1138 (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on BES Utilities. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. Jim1138 (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page BES Utilities has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to BES Utilities, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Boomer Vial^Holla 10:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Fleetwood Town FC

Please do not remove content because you believe it us "unsuitable". The question arises as to in whose eyes it is "unsuitable", and given this IP is owned by the sponsors of Fleetwood Town FC, it is plain that the removal of content is to cohere with 'unsuitable' from a Commercial sense - not on the basis an item is factually incorrect and/or false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.171.195 (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

BES Utilities

Hello, we've spotted that you complain of "This page was protected previously for "Persistent disruptive editing" and now it's happening again" With respect, has it occurred to you that it is yourselves who are being disruptive by constantly deleting reliably sourced material?

For example, Jim1138 said: Do not remove wp:reliably sourced (RS), wp:cited information from articles, such as your edit here, without a good reason. You gave this wp:edit summary: unsourced negative claim. That was an untrue statement as it is RS. Blogs, forum postings, and other wp:selfpublished sources are generally not considered RS.

Likewise, Larois has said: "Please stop blanking the "Controversy" section at BES Utilities. As currently written, its content is not defamatory (which requires that the statements are false). It includes only a short description of the criticism and official government investigation, and I believe it is consistent with Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view policy and its presence in the article is justified. Under what reasoning do you believe that the investigation should not be mentioned at all?"

There can be no doubt you are using this Wikipedia Page has a PR tool. Further, you are sending lawyers letters (through Berg Legal) to anyone that dare portray the facts regarding BES, effectively threatening them with some form of Court action, which is clearly misconceived.

Please stop using Wiki as a PR tool. Please also stop threatening anyone who edits Wiki with RS content. BES and/or Berg Legal do not own Wikipedia, or have any rights as to hiding factual information regarding to BES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.186.214 (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Fenix down (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:BES Utilities. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Removal of other's talk

Again, please read WP:REDACT. Do not remove other's talk on talk pages without a good reason. If someone else replies to your post as is the case on talk:BES Utilities, leave both yours and the other's talk alone. It will be archived later if the page fills up. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (the main page of WP:REDACT). Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Talk:BES Utilities.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for continued removal of material, as done at Talk:BES Utilities. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Fenix down (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

---