User talk:York Ant-Corruption

June 2013

Hello, I'm Gmt2001. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Julia Mulligan because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Ref revision 558282198 Gmt2001 (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, York Ant-Corruption. You have new messages at Gmt2001's talk page.
Message added 13:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Gmt2001 (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Hey. Sorry, but I've reverted some of your edits tonight. I'm not suggesting that any of what you wrote may not be true, but we need to ensure that anything that is even remotely controversial, especially about living people, is really well sourced using reliable, third party sources. For the sorts of things you're dealing with I think you need to be finding press reports for starters - and probably multiple ones if possible. If there are published reports from a police authority, inspectorate or whatever then they might be helpful as well. But you need, as a matter of utmost importance, to provide good sourcing - self published stuff is never going to be good enough.

There are a number of reasons for this. In particular can I ask that you read WP:BLP as a matter of some urgency. This applies either on an article about an individual or anything which mentions an individual in another article. In trust you can see that it is crucially important to the project for people to be able to trust what they read here. Reliable sourcing is at the heart of winning that trust.

Feel free to ask for any help you need. Add a note here or on my talk page. And, you know, welcome to the project. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but if respected national journals like "Private Eye" are not good enough for you, what is?

Sorry, was Private Eye in there? I thought the majority were blogs and so on? It might have been in there, and, of course, there are issues with Private Eye in terms of being satirical. I would certainly hope for some local news sources or something for some of the things you're dealing with here. There must be some stuff in there somewhere or other? I might have missed the Private Eye one though - it could certainly contribute to a set of references (with the satire caveat).

As a heads up, we try and use a colon at the start of a reply to indent the reply. I've added one to yours and then two colons to mine - this deals with the indent. You can then sign posts so that everyone knows who wrote them by using 4 tilde characters (the ~ character) at the end of your reply. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in police custody

Hi. I undid your additions of this information not because I dispute the content but because it was somewhat misplaced. I touched on the subject here in an article I wrote about the Death of Christopher Alder, but believe that there is scope for much more comprehensive coverage. Particularly as the current UK deaths in custody article is, frankly, pretty piss poor. I wonder if you would be interested in improving the latter article, or collaborating? Keri (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Amaury. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to User talk:Julia Mulligan, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Amaury (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3RR/Edit warring

Your recent editing history at North Yorkshire Police shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Keri (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]