User talk:JJ1970

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Emma Barnett, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 06:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Factual removal of information

It is not melicious it is factual. This is very relevant and in the public interest. I note that you keep editing it out and removing the reference - this is against the spirit of wikipedia and freedom of speak - please cease doing so otherwise I will need to report you JJ1970 (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your edit is WP:DAILYMAIL. . . .Mean as custard (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as was pointed out in the edit summary, The Daily Mail is not a reliable source here, and continuing to add negative content about living people that is sourced only to it will continue to be reverted. Melcous (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased slightly and cited a "reliable" source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.250.128 (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Factual information

Dear Colleague thanks for the advice - I am new here! If I reference the court proceedings in the interests of free speech will you stop removing this factual information ? I am not a Daily Mail fan either so I fully understand where you are coming from - many thanks JJ1970 (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are problems with using primary sources as well. Adding negative content about living people raises various issues. Probably the best thing you can do is explain on the article's talk page why you think it is so important for this content to be in the article in the first place, as a number of other editors have previously agreed that it should not be there and along with the various policies and guidelines, wikipedia works by consensus. Melcous (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Many thanks - I am learning! Out of interest why are you and others so fixated on this particular wiki page when other far more dubious content is simply left alone on others pages? JJ1970 (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is "fixated" on this page, but most experienced editors will add pages they have added to their "watchlist" which means they are alerted when changes are made. If there are other articles with similar problems, feel free to point them out so that they can also be fixed. Melcous (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Hello, I'm LakesideMiners. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Emma Barnett— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners^{Click Here To Talk To Me!} 16:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Emma Barnett. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners^{Click Here To Talk To Me!} 16:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moral highgound

Please do not keep removing this important information from Wikipedia it is very much in the public interest and repeated removal of facts IS vandalism and in democratic what on earth gives you the moral high ground? JJ1970 (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Emma Barnett. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Melcous (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Barnett

I have reverted your removal of content in the Emma Barnett article as the content appeared to be supported by reliable sources. Lmatt (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is a reliable source?

Please answer yes / no:

The Guardian – Yes

The Times – Yes

The Daily Mail – No

Twitter – No – Please point out the Twitter reference. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 10:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how you have decided on these answers JJ1970 (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may find the guidelines on identifying reliable sources helpful. You can ask any questions about reliable sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmatt (talk • contribs) 01:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People here appear to be making up rules about reliable sources to suit their own political views - if someone decides they like a newspaper article they deem it a reliable source, if not, they deem it unreliable. One self declared moderator stated that even court decisions were unreliable yet left a Twitter reference in place. JJ1970 (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out the Twitter reference. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 10:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RS.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Emma Barnett. Melcous (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Emma Barnett has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Emma Barnett was changed by JJ1970 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.916215 on 2018-05-26T19:43:16+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

You will be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Emma Barnett. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 18:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

What right have you to remove quotes that are from recognised references already listed? I thought this was meant to be a democratic place where all views were respected but no : clearly yourself and Mr Cross run the show - what a farce JJ1970 (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy. However, when you have a dispute about content, you need to discuss the content on the article talk page and seek a consensus about the content.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 02:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Hello. You appear to have made some reverts lately on Emma Barnett. Please be aware that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts on a single page within a 24 hour period. Rather than reverting edits, please consider using the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. The dispute resolution processes may also help. Excessive reverting may result in a loss of editing privileges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmatt (talk • contribs) 20:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)}[reply]