Hello, Gilligan Philip! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Terence Brain has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://caads.blogspot.com/. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place for people to air personal and biased attacks on individuals, the material you continue to place on the Bishop Brain page is not encyclopedic content, it is clearly your personal views and it has no place on Wikipedia, if you continue to place it there, we will be left with no choice but to lock the page and prevent your continued vandalism. Please cease and desist, Thank-you --greg78uk (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to have a read of the Wikipedia rules for content of biographies of living people. Any statement which could be contentious or potentially libel must be supported by documented citations. In your additions to the article you state that Bishop Brain has been criticised but provide no evidence of this fact. You also state that it has reported that he has not replied to requests, again you cannot provide any evidence of this fact. If you can provide proper citations supporting these two claims, then this material will be well placed to be included in the Bishops article, however if you cannot, then it has no place there. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a web forum for airing views.--greg78uk (talk) 12.43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Those links are not academic sources. Okay so you have produced a presentation and published it online and evidentally written into a local paper. All that you are stating is that you personally have criticised the Bishop and that is not how Wikipedia works. If I lived next door to a famous person and had a dispute over our garden fence. I could produce a presentation about it and publish it online, then go on Wikipedia and put on his page that this person has recieved criticism over his personal fence policy...it would be true, as I had critiscised him, but it wouldn't be encyclopedic content and it wouldn't be an academic source. Now if the fence dispute got into the National Papers with comment and criticism about it, then that would be a different matter. Citicism is an important part of a persons wiki page, but it must be reliably sourced and cited, otherwise it will be removed, either by other users or by the automatic robots (as happened initially with your entry). I'm afraid I have the Wikipedia community and regulations with me on this one. What you need to provide if you want this piece in the article, is academic evidence that somebody, other than yourself has criticised him in an official capacity, if you have that then this topic will be a welcome addition to the article.--greg78uk (talk) 12.52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
