Talk:Association of Chartered Certified Accountants/Archives/2021

February 2021

Moved from User talk:Idell

Hi Idell, you removed my contribution to ACCA page and stated " Information icon Hello, I'm Idell. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Association of Chartered Certified Accountants have been reverted or removed because they seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Idell (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure if they are defamatory or libellous, howver, what I wrote is based on facts and if facts are defamatory or libellous, then these facts needso be changed rather then asking me to to tell world truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.235.57 (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello! The tone of your additions seems very defamatory, to which I can say that Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech or a battleground. In my recent edit, I removed parts of your additions that misconstrued the reasons for a judgement delivered by the subject's disciplinary committee. In fact, according to your citation, in the course of their investigation, they made multiple attempts to communicate with the accused, which they received no response to; and the actual proceedings were brought about for and the decision was based on several other reasons. Other edits have been disruptive for similar reasons.

I think I have adequately explained on your talk page what kind of sources (reliable, according to Wikipedia; and secondary, tertiary, etc.) you need to cite for any changes. (The subject's own website or PDF documents, random blogs or forums and first party/non-independent sources are unlikely to be reliable.) Do not analyze material in a way that serves to reach a conclusion not stated by the sources. It is not good enough for information to be true, if it is not verifiable (WP:Verifiability, not truth). Please follow the blue hyperlinks for further guidance. Idell (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Repetitive language

Hello. After I removed the text an IP user had added to the section on discipline that explains four or five times the simple fact that the organization requires all legal proceedings, regardless of the plaintiff's country, to be head in England or Wales, that user restored the text. I've left the user a message asking them if they could explain why they feel the repetition is necessary. Largoplazo (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Because, four days later, the same user has edited the discipline section again but hasn't responded here, I've again removed the repetitive text, and further removed repetitive text from the user's latest contribution. The language was beginning to read as though it was meant to seem like a dire warning, meant to impress us with the awesome power of the ACCA to punish, rather than neutrally presented information. Largoplazo (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)