User talk:TomTower
|
Thank you for your feedback. The main issues with your article seem to be perceived neutrality and lack of reliable citations. Do you have access to any offline sources?
Harkey (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I was told about this organisation by a couple of people and asked around. A couple of months later I was at the British Library and called up their published newsletters. I made some notes and put them up on the article, from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I also mentioned that these newsletters were available at the British library. I don;t know what the agenda of the person who savaged my article is but I don't believe any reasonable person could not say that he has very clearly and very deliberately destroyed it. I note you mention "neutrality" but surely this is in the ey of the beholder. I have cited the group's own publications which are on deposit with the legal authorities. What can be better than such a source? Surely if I cited a newspaper or magazine there will be no neutrality whatsoever? But thank you for your response. I am totally disillusioned. I am at work so probably cannot spend much time here anyway. Maybe I should have thought of that. TomTower (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sadly, that's often correct. One of the toughest things for me to get a handle on here is, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". That seems contradictory and against the goal of an encyclopedia. However, what I've come to realize is that Wikipedia also operates on the principle of consensus. Editors with conflicting information or views must work on the differences in the information and reach a consensus. The process isn't always easy or pretty, but ultimately, it does work. I hope you don't get too discouraged and that you continue editing. :) Harkey (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your article got decimated because the references given did not back up the information in the article: if it was there on the site it wasn't in the page which the link led to. None of the newsletters had cites: and if the only access to them is in the BL they are effectivly unpublished. Searching online sources in eg the Economist, Spectator, The Times gets absolutely zip apart from the bunfights: these people are basically non-notable'.TheLongTone (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- And btw if you're that cut up and can actually cite sources, all edits can be undone.TheLongTone (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
You are very rude. Everything I put into the article I found and mentioned the references. Everything published in the United Kingdom must have editions deposited with the British Library and Universities Agents so I am unable to see how you can justify saying they are unpublished. it is just untrue. I think you are quite wring to imagine that everything on earth is somehow on-line. It just isn't. Wikipedia is packed solid with absolutely non-notable. This group is in the public domain. It is your personal opinion that they are non-notable.TomTower (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not being rude: I'm telling it like it is. Put proper cites in, if you can find any. I'm not saying the newsletters are nonexistant: I'm saying they are essentially unreferencable if they have not been referred to in print. Having something in the BL in't good enough: as you say, everything is there. It's not published. You need secondary sources.TheLongTone (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The fact is that they have publications which were widely distributed and legally registered in the UK and which remain available to the General Public. They are therefore legitimate source materials. TomTower (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Widely distributed and completely ignored. I assume that you could in fact put cites in for the 'newsletters' from the organisation website, which would serve to verify the content I think, but the fact remains that these people are entitely non-notable as far as I can tell, since apart from the press reportson the annual dinners all the citations would be self-published. The reports on the dinners establish that they exist, but fail to establish that thy have any influence or importance. If you want this article to remainhere you need to address these issues. TheLongTone (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Your astonishing rudeness persists. How on earth can you make a statement that their publications are "completely ignored"?! Absolutely astonishing remark. Simon Heffer, Gerard Batten and Francis Fulford all felt that they were important enough for them to address at a formal dinner otherwise I would argue they would have been as dismissive as you.TomTower (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have said nothing remotely rude. I'm merely stating facts. Take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents if you want a second opinion.TheLongTone (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry that your first experience here isn't working out. The way Wikipedia tries to maintain a reasonable amount of reasonably accurate content, given that it's edited by amateurs, is a verifiability standard (explained on the linked page). Unfortunately I don't have time to research the article more today, so I can't be of any more help; just wanted to let you know this isn't a personal thing against your or the subject of your article. Nobody Ent 13:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your post. TomTower (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hey Tom, y'know my first article attempt here got deleted a long time ago. In the course of it, I was confronted with what some people call Wikipedia's alphabet soup (WP:NOTE, WP:CITE, WP:AFD, and all the other strange acronyms, some of which I still don't know what they mean.) Anyway, my point being is that instead of being discouraged, I just moved on to other things and starting regularly reading the talk pages and noticeboards trying to learn how things work around here. One of these days I'm going to use that knowledge to re-write that deleted article, and get it to "featured article" status. So, don't get discouraged. Writing/editing articles can be a lot of fun, but noticeboards like WP:ANI are not. I'd suggest staying "under the radar" for a while while you start out. Let me know if you need some help, and you might want to take a look at the page User:SuggestBot for some ideas of where to go from here. Good luck. Quinn ✹SUNSHINE 13:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Traditional Britain Group for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Traditional Britain Group is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional Britain Group (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TheLongTone (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The Group is featured in the latest (May) edition of Searchlight magazine and on their cover. Also it is here: http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/house-of-lords-reform-traditional-britain-speaks-out/ TomTower (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
[edit]
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David Lauder for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. 2 lines of K303 16:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
This gets crazier by the moment. I know nothing of this. TomTower (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- This means that your editing pattern and/or IP address is similar to another user who was likely blocked and/or banned from editing on Wikipedia at some point, so an SPI clerk is simply going to cross check your account just to make sure that is not the case. "Sockpuppet" is Wikipedia-lingo for a user who edits under multiple different accounts, which is, for the most part, against the rules here. It's unfortunate that these cases are necessary, but there are a lot of people out there who would like to "game the system" and use Wikipedia to drive their own agenda. Therefore, it's a pretty common occurrence to open one of these cases when a new user starts-out editing political articles (or any subject that tends to be controversial...religious based articles is another, for instance), so I would not worry about it. If you have never previously edited under a different username, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about. If you have, and there is a good reason for it, just make mention of it at the case page linked above, or let me know and I will assist. Otherwise, my advice is to ignore it, and it will go away shortly. :). Quinn ✹SUNSHINE 14:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Just one more thing and I'll leave you alone: The above is why I advised to "stay under the radar" for while, at least while starting out. Political articles, as I am sure you can imagine, tend to get pretty heated, as people hold strong convictions about political subjects, and, even though we're supposed to always maintain a neutral point of view, things can get pretty heated. Take a look at the talk page archives for Sarah Palin or Al Franken for instance. Quinn ✹SUNSHINE 14:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I am nobodies sock-puppet. This is tripe. TomTower (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)