User talk:Nelsoneffa

Hello. I see that in both of your edits you've removed the same paragraph that refers to Tooley's conviction in France. Both times you've not given a reason to do so. There may be very valid reasons to remove it – if for example it's inaccurate.

If that's the case, it's important that you let us know. That way we can permanently remove the information rather than do so on a temporary basis. If it is accurate, however, it almost certainly needs to stay in the article given his position at the company. I appreciate that that might be embarrassing or unfortunate, but it's a significant event in his working life I think.

If it is inaccurate, please let us know somehow – just leave a note here and I'll see it and action it. Sources to show what has changed would be really helpful as well. Thanks Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

EDIT: please ignore the below as I have now replied to the relevant and most recent post on this talk page.

Hello, I have just seen your messages, my apologies for the late reply.

I would like to respectfully request a review of the block placed on my account following edits relating to the aforementioned section concerning Christopher Tooley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Tooley).

My intention in removing or modifying the material was to correct a factual inaccuracy in the way the legal situation is currently described. Specifically, the content appears to present Mr Tooley as having been convicted of a criminal offence.

In fact, the court's decision referenced in the article was appealed on the same day. Under French criminal procedure, an appeal has a suspensive effect, meaning that the execution of the judgment is suspended and the case is reheard in full before the Court of Appeal.

As a consequence, the presumption of innocence continues to apply until a final and non-appealable decision is rendered, and there is no conviction standing against Mr Tooley.

Official legal correspondence provided by various experts and practitioners, which I am happy to provide, counsel explains that:

- The appeal was lodged on the same day as the initial judgment.

- The appeal suspends the effects of the decision, including the declaration of guilt.

- Under French law and Article 6 §2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the defendants must continue to benefit from the presumption of innocence until a definitive judgment is issued.

- Consequently, they cannot currently be considered guilty or convicted while the appeal is pending.

I believe the article’s current wording presents a non-final decision as a settled conviction, thus conflicting withh Wikipedia’s policies on Biographies of Living Persons, particularly the requirement that contentious material about living individuals must be accurate, carefully worded, and supported by reliable sources.

I would be very happy to discuss this on the article talk page and work collaboratively to reach wording that reflects both reliable sourcing and the current legal status.

Thank you for taking the time to review this request.

Regards,

Nelsoneffa Nelsoneffa (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Chris Tooley, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 17:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Chris Tooley. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 18:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Chris Tooley, you may be blocked from editing. • a frantic turtle 🐢 19:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. JP (Talk) 15:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. JP (Talk) 16:08, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I see that in both of your edits you've removed the same paragraph that refers to Tooley's conviction in France. Both times you've not given a reason to do so. There may be very valid reasons to remove it – if for example it's inaccurate.

If that's the case, it's important that you let us know. That way we can permanently remove the information rather than do so on a temporary basis. If it is accurate, however, it almost certainly needs to stay in the article given his position at the company. I appreciate that that might be embarrassing or unfortunate, but it's a significant event in his working life I think.

If it is inaccurate, please let us know somehow – just leave a note here and I'll see it and action it. Sources to show what has changed would be really helpful as well. Thanks Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I have just seen your messages, my apologies for the late reply.

I would like to respectfully request a review of the block placed on my account following edits relating to the aforementioned section concerning Christopher Tooley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Tooley).

My intention in removing or modifying the material was to correct a factual inaccuracy in the way the legal situation is currently described. Specifically, the content appears to present Mr Tooley as having been convicted of a criminal offence.

In fact, the court's decision referenced in the article was appealed on the same day. Under French criminal procedure, an appeal has a suspensive effect, meaning that the execution of the judgment is suspended and the case is reheard in full before the Court of Appeal.

As a consequence, the presumption of innocence continues to apply until a final and non-appealable decision is rendered, and there is no conviction standing against Mr Tooley.

Official legal correspondence provided by various experts and practitioners, which I am happy to provide, counsel explains that:

- The appeal was lodged on the same day as the initial judgment.

- The appeal suspends the effects of the decision, including the declaration of guilt.

- Under French law and Article 6 §2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the defendants must continue to benefit from the presumption of innocence until a definitive judgment is issued.

- Consequently, they cannot currently be considered guilty or convicted while the appeal is pending.

I believe the article’s current wording presents a non-final decision as a settled conviction, thus conflicting withh Wikipedia’s policies on Biographies of Living Persons, particularly the requirement that contentious material about living individuals must be accurate, carefully worded, and supported by reliable sources.

I would be very happy to discuss this on the article talk page and work collaboratively to reach wording that reflects both reliable sourcing and the current legal status.

Thank you for taking the time to review this request.

Regards, Nelsoneffa (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent further disruptive removal of material, as you did at Chris Tooley.

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 09:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Hello, I would like to respectfully request a review of the block placed on my account following edits relating to the aforementioned section concerning Christopher Tooley (Chris Tooley). My intention in removing or modifying the material was to correct a factual inaccuracy in the way the legal situation is currently described. Specifically, the content appears to present Mr Tooley as having been convicted of a criminal offence. In fact, the court's decision referenced in the article was appealed on the same day. Under French criminal procedure, an appeal has a suspensive effect, meaning that the execution of the judgment is suspended and the case is reheard in full before the Court of Appeal. As a consequence, the presumption of innocence continues to apply until a final and non-appealable decision is rendered, and there is no conviction standing against Mr Tooley. Official legal correspondence provided by various experts and practitioners, which I am happy to provide, counsel explains that: - The appeal was lodged on the same day as the initial judgment. - The appeal suspends the effects of the decision, including the declaration of guilt. - Under French law and Article 6 §2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the defendants must continue to benefit from the presumption of innocence until a definitive judgment is issued. - Consequently, they cannot currently be considered guilty or convicted while the appeal is pending. I believe the article’s current wording presents a non-final decision as a settled conviction, thus conflicting withh Wikipedia’s policies on Biographies of Living Persons, particularly the requirement that contentious material about living individuals must be accurate, carefully worded, and supported by reliable sources. I would be very happy to discuss this on the article talk page and work collaboratively to reach wording that reflects both reliable sourcing and the current legal status. Thank you for taking the time to review this request.

Apologies for the double post, I posted this previously but had not realised I was not logged in.

Regards, Nelsoneffa Nelsoneffa (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Hello, I would like to respectfully request a review of the block placed on my account following edits relating to the aforementioned section concerning Christopher Tooley ([[Chris Tooley]]). My intention in removing or modifying the material was to correct a factual inaccuracy in the way the legal situation is currently described. Specifically, the content appears to present Mr Tooley as having been convicted of a criminal offence. In fact, the court's decision referenced in the article was appealed on the same day. Under French criminal procedure, an appeal has a suspensive effect, meaning that the execution of the judgment is suspended and the case is reheard in full before the Court of Appeal. As a consequence, the presumption of innocence continues to apply until a final and non-appealable decision is rendered, and there is no conviction standing against Mr Tooley. Official legal correspondence provided by various experts and practitioners, which I am happy to provide, counsel explains that: - The appeal was lodged on the same day as the initial judgment. - The appeal suspends the effects of the decision, including the declaration of guilt. - Under French law and Article 6 §2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the defendants must continue to benefit from the presumption of innocence until a definitive judgment is issued. - Consequently, they cannot currently be considered guilty or convicted while the appeal is pending. I believe the article’s current wording presents a non-final decision as a settled conviction, thus conflicting withh Wikipedia’s policies on Biographies of Living Persons, particularly the requirement that contentious material about living individuals must be accurate, carefully worded, and supported by reliable sources. I would be very happy to discuss this on the article talk page and work collaboratively to reach wording that reflects both reliable sourcing and the current legal status. Thank you for taking the time to review this request. Apologies for the double post, I posted this previously but had not realised I was not logged in. Regards, Nelsoneffa [[User:Nelsoneffa|Nelsoneffa]] ([[User talk:Nelsoneffa#top|talk]]) 13:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello, I would like to respectfully request a review of the block placed on my account following edits relating to the aforementioned section concerning Christopher Tooley ([[Chris Tooley]]). My intention in removing or modifying the material was to correct a factual inaccuracy in the way the legal situation is currently described. Specifically, the content appears to present Mr Tooley as having been convicted of a criminal offence. In fact, the court's decision referenced in the article was appealed on the same day. Under French criminal procedure, an appeal has a suspensive effect, meaning that the execution of the judgment is suspended and the case is reheard in full before the Court of Appeal. As a consequence, the presumption of innocence continues to apply until a final and non-appealable decision is rendered, and there is no conviction standing against Mr Tooley. Official legal correspondence provided by various experts and practitioners, which I am happy to provide, counsel explains that: - The appeal was lodged on the same day as the initial judgment. - The appeal suspends the effects of the decision, including the declaration of guilt. - Under French law and Article 6 §2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the defendants must continue to benefit from the presumption of innocence until a definitive judgment is issued. - Consequently, they cannot currently be considered guilty or convicted while the appeal is pending. I believe the article’s current wording presents a non-final decision as a settled conviction, thus conflicting withh Wikipedia’s policies on Biographies of Living Persons, particularly the requirement that contentious material about living individuals must be accurate, carefully worded, and supported by reliable sources. I would be very happy to discuss this on the article talk page and work collaboratively to reach wording that reflects both reliable sourcing and the current legal status. Thank you for taking the time to review this request. Apologies for the double post, I posted this previously but had not realised I was not logged in. Regards, Nelsoneffa [[User:Nelsoneffa|Nelsoneffa]] ([[User talk:Nelsoneffa#top|talk]]) 13:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello, I would like to respectfully request a review of the block placed on my account following edits relating to the aforementioned section concerning Christopher Tooley ([[Chris Tooley]]). My intention in removing or modifying the material was to correct a factual inaccuracy in the way the legal situation is currently described. Specifically, the content appears to present Mr Tooley as having been convicted of a criminal offence. In fact, the court's decision referenced in the article was appealed on the same day. Under French criminal procedure, an appeal has a suspensive effect, meaning that the execution of the judgment is suspended and the case is reheard in full before the Court of Appeal. As a consequence, the presumption of innocence continues to apply until a final and non-appealable decision is rendered, and there is no conviction standing against Mr Tooley. Official legal correspondence provided by various experts and practitioners, which I am happy to provide, counsel explains that: - The appeal was lodged on the same day as the initial judgment. - The appeal suspends the effects of the decision, including the declaration of guilt. - Under French law and Article 6 §2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the defendants must continue to benefit from the presumption of innocence until a definitive judgment is issued. - Consequently, they cannot currently be considered guilty or convicted while the appeal is pending. I believe the article’s current wording presents a non-final decision as a settled conviction, thus conflicting withh Wikipedia’s policies on Biographies of Living Persons, particularly the requirement that contentious material about living individuals must be accurate, carefully worded, and supported by reliable sources. I would be very happy to discuss this on the article talk page and work collaboratively to reach wording that reflects both reliable sourcing and the current legal status. Thank you for taking the time to review this request. Apologies for the double post, I posted this previously but had not realised I was not logged in. Regards, Nelsoneffa [[User:Nelsoneffa|Nelsoneffa]] ([[User talk:Nelsoneffa#top|talk]]) 13:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

You put your statement three times, only once is needed. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

What is your connection to Mr. Tooley or this matter?

If you have a public independent reliable source that his conviction has been appealled and is currently not final/in effect, (not private documents or correspondence) I would consider removing the block. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)