User talk:Gunnersaurus43

Who ever wrote the so called 'authoritative' information on Tommy Robinson should soon be facing charges of slander. This left wing opinionated garbage from zero due diligence, needs to have consequences.. Watch this space! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.235.61 (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Hello, I'm Teratix. I noticed that you recently removed content from Laura Smith (politician) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. – Teratix ₵ 09:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Keir Starmer. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Keir Starmer, you may be blocked from editing. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you're going to add 'millionaire' to the biographies of all notable subjects whose wealth is at least £1 million, then? Mattythewhite (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PA's

This [[1]] could be seen as a violation of wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also (note) and edit war (please read wp:editwar) does not have to be a breach of wp:3rr. It can in fact be over days.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To suggest that the publication of a politically controversial and discredited allegation contravenes Wikipedia principles of impartiality and should be referred for wider discussion - that does not in any rational sense constitute a personal attack. Gunnersaurus43 (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is the accusation of vandalism, WP:NOTVANDALISM, make it clear that POV publishing is not vandalism.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying your point. I disagree. Arguably, adding to the infobox a piece of clearly hoax information does meet the definition for "Hoaxing vandalism" i.e. "Deliberately adding falsities to articles, particularly to biographies of living people, with hoax information is considered vandalism."Gunnersaurus43 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except when first added it was not seen as a hoax. That is why we have talk pages, so you can explain your reasoning.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]