User talk:GeorgeandGeoff

Welcome!

Hello, GeorgeandGeoff, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome!

I have reverted one of your edits because you removed properly cited material. Please review Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, and make sure that you add references to reliable sources for your edits. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 13:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So after I let you know about Wikipedia policy and gave you a bunch of resources to read up on how to contribute here collaboratively, you reverted my edits again. You're not off to a good start here in Wikipedia. Wikpedia is a community working together to write an encyclopaedia. Like any community, it has rules to help people get along and avoid disputes. Like any community, if you break the rules, there are sancitons. In Wikipedia, you can be blocked from editing for a period of time, which will get longer each time you break the same rules, and you can be banned from editing permanently. I encourage you again to learn about how to contribute constructively in WIkipedia so this does not happen. Regards, Ground Zero | t 18:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ground Zero,

Again we ask you, why have you continued to replace the corrections which we have made to the Wikipedia article of the National Party of the UK? We were members of that organisation during the late 1970s and know what we're talking about. All that talk about a "Strasserite wing" (whatever that might be!) is complete nonsense!

If you're serious about the accuracy of Wikipedia entries then please allow the accurate corrections which we have made stand.

Thanking you for your help in this matter. GeorgeandGeoff (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further to our previous message, as the history of the NPUK is now so obscure is it really worth making an issue of this matter? GeorgeandGeoff (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, as I explained above, is that, without justification or explanation, you have removed material that is referenced. Specifically, without explanation, you removed the comment about circulating Holocaust denial material, which was referenced to an apparently reliable source. You also removed the comment about Kingsley read recanting, referenced to Searchlight. It appears that you are trying to sanitise the article to reflect your own views about your time in the organisation. It may be that you are too close to it to be objective about it. With regard to your suggestion that I should not make an issue of it because the history of NPUK is now obscure, I note that you are also making an issue of it. My perspective is only about the integrity of Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 19:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear "Ground Zero",

We honestly can't understand why you continue to edit the Wikipedia entry regarding the National Party of the UK. We were members of this short-lived party so know what we're talking about - you apparently weren't. Holocaust Denial material may well have been circulated by individual members of the party (and subsequent revelations about David McCalden in this regard are very disturbing), but not by the party itself. If we had known about such a thing happening then we would have resigned immediately! Likewise to state that the party was "neo-fascist" flies against all documented evidence. Those of us who left the National Front at the end of 1975 did so PRECISELY because we abhorred fascism so much, and when a clique of neo-fascists managed to usurp control of that party we, and others who went on to found the NPUK, resigned immediately. The term "neo-Conservative" may not have been commonplace in those days, but by its forthright advocation of de-nationalisation (i.e. Privatisation) this still seems to us to be a very accurate description of the NPUK's stance. Regarding your claim that Kingsley Read handed over he membership list of the party to opponents, all we will say is: It's easy to smear a dean man isn't it! You state that you are only concerned with the integrity of Wikipedia. If that was the case then you wouldn't allow such arid nonsense to appear on this entry. The least you can surely do is to make it clear that there are rival interpretations about the nature of the party. 86.180.64.30 (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me introduce you to two dogs:

Firstly, any assertion of being an expert in something on the basis of having been there has no credibility in Wikipedia because there is no way of verifying that what you say is true. What does have credibility is references to third party sources -- please see Wikipedia policies on verifiability and reliable sources.

Secondly, you are right: I was not a member of the NPUK or the NF. I was not even in the UK in 1975. That makes me an objective observer, not an involved non-objective person like you. I do not claim anything about Kingsley Read or anyone else. I have not added these statements to the article; I am only restoring them because they are adequately referenced. If you have references to reliable sources that contradict these claims, please add them (with the references of course). You cannot deleted referenced material just because you don't agree with it or based on your unsupported claim of having been there.

Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about YOU, which says, in part, "...it is strongly urged that those articles not be written by involved persons. Yes, it can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement, and perhaps you might feel your personal knowledge uniquely qualifies you on the subject, but that involvement and that personal knowledge reflect a conflict of interest. That you might "know" something is fine, but for inclusion in Wikipedia, we require confirmation that the world at large already knows about it too." I hope this helps you understand that your edits are not consistent with Wikipedia policy. Ground Zero | t 23:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]