User talk:Danmilward

Hello, Danmilward, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Danmilward, and welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created, E-Commerce lite, has been tagged for speedy deletion because its content is clearly written to promote a company, product, or service. This article may have been deleted by the time you see this message. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising service. Thank you. NawlinWiki 21:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding links to e-Commerce lite to articles. This article does not exist (it apparently was created by you, but speedy deleted). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This also includes using an IP to add the link . --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance notices from pages unless the required changes have been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on WordPress e-Commerce Plugin, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because WordPress e-Commerce Plugin is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting WordPress e-Commerce Plugin, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Danmilward. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Independent Together, 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 article subjects 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 {{edit COI}} template), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• 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, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. IdiotSavant (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm IdiotSavant. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Independent Together seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. As noted above, you appear to have a conflict of interest regarding htis page, as you are one of Independent Together's candidates. Please do not edit the page in future. If you have changes to suggest, use the {{edit COI}} template on the talk page. --IdiotSavant (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Independent Together. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Your edits have now been reverted tot he status quo. I note that you are now discussing changes on the article talk page; I suggesting waiting to see the response there before making further edits. IdiotSavant (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia IS written by people who have a wide diversity of options.

Thanks for the notes. I’m aware of WP:COI and am approaching this transparently.

To be clear: my edits are factual, sourced, and aimed at correcting omissions and misrepresentation. “Promotion” implies tone or purpose that doesn’t match what I actually wrote.

I’ve already moved to the Talk page and requested neutral editors to review the material, but I’ll continue to push back against mischaracterisation. WP:OWN applies here too — and removing accurate, cited material without engagement is just as problematic.

Let’s focus on accuracy, not identity politics. I’m here to improve the article. Danmilward (talk) 10:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou for moving things to the talk page. Some other editors will take a look at your proposed edits and determine what (if anything) needs to be changed. IdiotSavant (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks – I appreciate the reply. I’ve since updated the article with fully sourced, factual content that aligns with what’s outlined on the Talk page. I believe it improves balance and accuracy without breaching neutrality or policy.

You’ll also note that several editors involved in this article have a track record of gatekeeping behaviour. That pattern matters when assessing how neutrality is being applied.

Lastly, as you’ll see in my latest edit, I did **not** give permission for the photo of me that was included — it was taken decades ago and used without my consent. This reflects the broader situation and the poor (yet deliberate) editorial judgement at play.

If any specific points raise concern, I’m happy to discuss them. My goal here is to improve the article, not promote.

Cheers,

Dan Milward Danmilward (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I think you'll find those editors are enforcing WP:COI. You simply should not be making edits to a page on which you have a clear conflict of interest. There is a process for suggesting changes via article talk pages, and you should use it.

Regarding the image, your permission simply isn't necessary. It was taken at a public event with no expectation of privacy, so its use accords with WP:IMAGEPOL. If you would prefer a more recent image, I suggest you upload one with an appropriate licence (CC-BY or CC0 are good). Wikipedia editors almost always prefer newer images to older ones, so it would be highly likely to be used. IdiotSavant (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand your point of view, but I disagree with how WP:COI is being interpreted and enforced here.

Yes, I’m a candidate, but I’m transparent about that and WP:COI **does not prohibit editing** — it calls for disclosure and careful adherence to sourcing and neutrality. My edits are factual, backed by citations, and written with restraint. Accusations of promotion are neither accurate nor policy-based.

I also note that the same editors citing COI are making decisions about article tone, framing, and inclusion — without disclosure of their own potential biases. That too is a COI concern under WP:OWN.

Regarding the image: the question is not legality or public setting — it’s **editorial judgement**. The photo is over a decade old, was not uploaded by me, and doesn’t reflect my current public presence. Including it **without context or consent** isn’t neutral — it’s editorially poor. I’ll upload a more recent, freely licensed image, and expect that to be respected and used going forward.

I’m not here to battle over process — I’m here to improve the quality of the article and correct distortions. If policy is the basis of this discussion, it needs to be applied consistently.

Cheers,

Dan Milward 121.98.105.95 (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, no, neither WP:OWN nor having a bias is a conflict of interest. The latter refers to an actual external relationship with the subject of the article, which "having strong opinions about" isn't. Also, given how many different editors have reverted you (even some with little prior involvement in the article), I don't think WP:OWN applies. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Independent Together. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

So much for honesty and integrity.

Dan Milward 2404:440C:2A8B:8200:31F4:C356:274C:42A9 (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for contravening Wikipedia's policy against harassment. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Cabayi (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

If you have reason to report a user's conflict of interest referring to off-wiki evidence then you should follow the process at WP:COIVRT. DOXXING other editors is not tolerated. Cabayi (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Dear Cabayi, I acknowledge the block and understand the importance of Wikipedia’s behavioural standards. I had no intention of harassing or doxxing anyone and now recognise how my actions may have been interpreted. I’m new to Wikipedia and doing my best to support a cause I believe in—the betterment of my home city. I’ve appreciated the constructive guidance from @Cloventt:, who has helped me navigate editing more appropriately. I entirely and wholeheartedly welcome any feedback and help navigating the situation with the Independent Together page. I’d like the opportunity to return with a more consensus-based and careful approach. Danmilward (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This reads like it was written by an AI chat bot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

After discussion with other oversighters, the material which I Oversighted as doxxing is now REVDELeted.

You should aim to "play the ball and not the man". Refrain from doxxing the editors with whom you are in dispute. Focus on improving the encyclopedia.

Regarding your ping above - As a general principle I do not consider appeals on blocks I have imposed. You deserve a genuine second opinion from an uninvolved admin, not just a restatement of my concerns/beliefs/interpretations. Cabayi (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

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

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Newslinger talk 13:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, your repeated use of undisclosed LLM-generated text in discussions (including the above unblock request) falls under two examples of not being here to build an encyclopedia: "General pattern of disruptive behavior" and "Dishonest and gaming behaviors". This is in addition to your violation of the policy against harassment. — Newslinger talk 13:28, 22 June 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hi Newslinger. Thanks for the opportunity to respond. I'm sorry things have escalated to this. This doesnt feel right. I'd like to be unblocked so I can continue my work in good faith. I understand the seriousness of the situation and have created the following timeline to show I've been learning, adjusting and not acting in bad faith. As you can see I've tried to follow guaidence and work collaboratively, particularly with editors like User:Cloventt. ::The truth is, the ONLY reason we're in this situation is because my wife looked up Independent Together on ChatGPT (out of curiosity) and got information back that was inaccurate. Or to use the term I learned from David User:Cloventt over the weekend, not encyclopaedic. ::This is a partial timeline that I'm working to provide context: ::- On 09:43, 2 June 2025 > Independent Together article created by User:Radicuil, a prolific editor who describes themselves as a “casual hobbyist.” I raise this only because their activity seems far more involved than hobbyist, with extensive edits across Wellington City Council related pages. ::- On 00:14, 16 June 2025 > I discover the article. I was shocked and upset by what I saw as bias. I made impulsive changes to “fix” it. I have acknowledged multiple times I did not follow Wikipedia process because I did not know the process. I’ve since learned this is not how Wikipedia works, and I have acknowledged this repeatedly. ::- Between 18 June and 22 June > A flurry of page edits and talk page activity. I begin participating more constructively, moving discussions to the talk page and reducing direct edits. ::- June 20 > Important: I begin working collaboratively with User:Cloventt (who is an editor with ties to Wikimedia Aotearoa) on the talk page, attempting to resolve differences and reach consensus. This felt like productive progress. ::- June 20 > While still engaged in this good faith discussion, I’m unexpectedly blocked. This came as a surprise, given I was following guidance at that point. ::- June 20 > Shortly after User:TheLoyalOrder adds a reference to my block in the article’s Criticism section - while I was unable to respond or provide context due to the block. This felt unfair and deliberate given I had acknowledged my beginner mistakes / not followed wikipedia process multiple times. ::- June 20 > Moments after that, User:Giantflightlessbirds adds a link to an article in The Post referencing me and Wikipedia editing - further embedding this dispute into the article in a way that felt one-sided and not based on all the facts. ::My reflections  ::I accept my early edits were rushed and bybassed Wikipedia norms. I was reacting emotionally to what I saw as a biased page. I've definitely learned that even well-intentioned changes need to go through the proper process. ::My use of an LLM was limited and I'm pretty sure totally outside of article space. I only did this to better understand and to clarify my intent to experienced editors. Still I hear you loud and clear. I won't use AI tools again. ::What’s harder to reconcile is what happened after began working with User:Cloventt. I was actively working with User:Cloventt in good faith and was suddenly blocked while talking to him. Moments later, User:TheLoyalOrder added my block notice to the article’s Criticism section. Shortly after that, User:Giantflightlessbirds added a link to a media article referencing the block and calling out my name specifically. ::Forgive me for seeing that as a sequence. I got blocked, then got publicly shamed, then media citation — as coordinated or retaliatory. At the very least, it felt not neutral. Especially considering I had no ability to engage or respond once blocked. ::It’s frustrating to be labelled “not here to build an encyclopaedia” when I was actively engaging, asking questions, and trying to find consensus. Even Admin User:Liz (clearly with no bias) acknowledged that all parties should have been paused from editing the article, which I agreed with in good faith. ::The Independent Together page still reads like an investigative article with overwhelmingly negative cites and tone. That’s not neutrality. I understand it’s not my place to directly edit it anymore, but I do think fair editorial standards should still apply. ::All that said: I made a mistake, I tried to fix it, I’ve learned from it. I’d like to return, respect Wikipedia norms, and contribute positively going forward. Danmilward (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

My strong advice would be that you refrain from editing articles about yourself/your political activities at all(except in the permitted circumstances described here) and use the talk page to discuss changes with other editors(or use the edit request process). You have found out the hard way about the pitfalls of editing about yourself(see the autobiography policy), especially as a public figure seeking public office- the press will write about it and that itself will be added to the article. (keep in mind that the press may very well be monitoring this page)

Nowhere does Wikipedia claim to be neutral- i.e. not taking a side; Wikipedia claims to strive for a neutral point of view, which is not the same thing. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic- and if those sources are overwhelmingly negative towards a subject, Wikipedia will reflect that. Wikipedia does not provide equal time and balance when sources do not(see WP:FALSEBALANCE). 331dot (talk) 08:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC) IMO this user has been extensive disruptive with ‘’three’’’ issues - ‘’’neutrality, AI usage, AND serious harassment/doxxing’’’. Not an admin, but oppose any unblock now. WhyItAll (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2025 (UTC)