This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I fail to understand why my edits on this keep getting reverted? I have quoted output from the government’s FOI portal - which has been incorrectly labelled as unreliable(!). Plus a reputable local paper. Reviewed jointly Blake’s role is clear. PJPWv2 ( talk) 06:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the website holding that email. It’s the mechanism through which information requested via the Freedom of Information act is commonly published - see https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/official-information/. The email cited as a source was released by Sheffield Council following a request in relation to the Streets Ahead contract.
As to your point about using Wikipedia to attack a politician, this is not what I intend to do. However, Blake’s entry at present ignores the controversies which occurred at the council whilst she was deputy leader. Had she merely been a councillor then it would not be appropriate to link them, but as deputy leader she moves from being associated to being jointly culpable. For example, her entry talks about her reforming outsourcing in relation to Capita, but ignores the aggressive manner in which opponents to environmental vandalism under a multi billion pound outsourcing contract were handled. If the edits I have been attempting to make are removed then no reference to the huge controversies which occurred while Blake was deputy will exist - which would not be presenting a fair or comprehensive view of her leadership to someone unfamiliar with Sheffield’s plight. Furthermore, she is now MP to one of the areas worst hit by the council’s actions so it remains relevant in her current role of MP for Hallam.
There is a raft of additional FoIs, council meeting minutes and other publications available to support the above and Blake’s general involvement in Streets Ahead and the persecution of protesters. Others are free to edit the paragraph I added to cite these - or when I’ve more time I will do it. PJPWv2 ( talk) 06:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Let’s deal with your first point - What Do They Know. This is an oft cited service which is well recognised by the ICO. There’s been zero suggestion that it is editing or selectively displaying information - not have any complaints alleging such been submitted regarding it. It is used extensively by FOI campaigners and public bodies alike as it represents a well known, easily accessible and reliable service through which to invoke and respond to FOI requests. The site operates a complaints process and, as a charity, has trustees for escalations should this be necessary. Having to state all of this to use an undisputed email disclosed under FOI to a well known website with appropriate governance and rights of appeal in place feels a little cumbersome, does it not? There is greater rigour in how that site is ran than how many newspapers (cited without question) are ran, with no editorial slant being applied. PJPWv2 ( talk) 13:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
an email is not a reliable source of the calibre appropriate for an encyclopedia; even if it were then it would be a primary source and due weight is only demonstrated by secondary sources. You say that
There's been zero suggestion that it is [...] selectively displaying informationbut this is the problem—that's what makes it a primary source, not a secondary source (which has editorial oversight). Only secondary sources show significance. I feel like you're digging really deep into something that was just a throwaway comment and ignoring the other four and three-quarters of the five-paragraph reply I wrote, and it would be more helpful to engage in the policies WP:DUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:V, which are how we on Wikipedia decide what information to include.
feels a little cumbersome, does it not?. Yes, it does. But I am afraid that there is a steep learning curve to understanding the guidelines and policies we have on Wikipedia. I'm sorry if this introduction to Wikipedia is an unpleasant one. We can just remove the content and spend our time more wisely—you could take a look at Wikipedia:Task Center, which has some suggested areas which are better for beginners. I notice you describe yourself as a
Cyber security and governance person, with an interest in digital identity.Maybe there are academic papers, (non-vanity press) books or high-quality news articles that you have read recently that you could try incorporating information from. But for now, you have been disrupting this article by repeatedly adding material that doesn't meet our editorial standards.
You’re not very good at sticking to the point being discussed here. I’ve highlighted the veracity of the source which you’ve failed to acknowledge and gone back into another long winded and patronising lecture, before reverting the edit again (I believe you described your behaviour as edit warring, previously?). PJPWv2 ( talk) 21:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
an email is not a reliable source of the calibre appropriate for an encyclopedia; even if it were then it would be a primary source and due weight is only demonstrated by secondary sources. This is my response, which you have not addressed yet.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I fail to understand why my edits on this keep getting reverted? I have quoted output from the government’s FOI portal - which has been incorrectly labelled as unreliable(!). Plus a reputable local paper. Reviewed jointly Blake’s role is clear. PJPWv2 ( talk) 06:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the website holding that email. It’s the mechanism through which information requested via the Freedom of Information act is commonly published - see https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/official-information/. The email cited as a source was released by Sheffield Council following a request in relation to the Streets Ahead contract.
As to your point about using Wikipedia to attack a politician, this is not what I intend to do. However, Blake’s entry at present ignores the controversies which occurred at the council whilst she was deputy leader. Had she merely been a councillor then it would not be appropriate to link them, but as deputy leader she moves from being associated to being jointly culpable. For example, her entry talks about her reforming outsourcing in relation to Capita, but ignores the aggressive manner in which opponents to environmental vandalism under a multi billion pound outsourcing contract were handled. If the edits I have been attempting to make are removed then no reference to the huge controversies which occurred while Blake was deputy will exist - which would not be presenting a fair or comprehensive view of her leadership to someone unfamiliar with Sheffield’s plight. Furthermore, she is now MP to one of the areas worst hit by the council’s actions so it remains relevant in her current role of MP for Hallam.
There is a raft of additional FoIs, council meeting minutes and other publications available to support the above and Blake’s general involvement in Streets Ahead and the persecution of protesters. Others are free to edit the paragraph I added to cite these - or when I’ve more time I will do it. PJPWv2 ( talk) 06:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Let’s deal with your first point - What Do They Know. This is an oft cited service which is well recognised by the ICO. There’s been zero suggestion that it is editing or selectively displaying information - not have any complaints alleging such been submitted regarding it. It is used extensively by FOI campaigners and public bodies alike as it represents a well known, easily accessible and reliable service through which to invoke and respond to FOI requests. The site operates a complaints process and, as a charity, has trustees for escalations should this be necessary. Having to state all of this to use an undisputed email disclosed under FOI to a well known website with appropriate governance and rights of appeal in place feels a little cumbersome, does it not? There is greater rigour in how that site is ran than how many newspapers (cited without question) are ran, with no editorial slant being applied. PJPWv2 ( talk) 13:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
an email is not a reliable source of the calibre appropriate for an encyclopedia; even if it were then it would be a primary source and due weight is only demonstrated by secondary sources. You say that
There's been zero suggestion that it is [...] selectively displaying informationbut this is the problem—that's what makes it a primary source, not a secondary source (which has editorial oversight). Only secondary sources show significance. I feel like you're digging really deep into something that was just a throwaway comment and ignoring the other four and three-quarters of the five-paragraph reply I wrote, and it would be more helpful to engage in the policies WP:DUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:V, which are how we on Wikipedia decide what information to include.
feels a little cumbersome, does it not?. Yes, it does. But I am afraid that there is a steep learning curve to understanding the guidelines and policies we have on Wikipedia. I'm sorry if this introduction to Wikipedia is an unpleasant one. We can just remove the content and spend our time more wisely—you could take a look at Wikipedia:Task Center, which has some suggested areas which are better for beginners. I notice you describe yourself as a
Cyber security and governance person, with an interest in digital identity.Maybe there are academic papers, (non-vanity press) books or high-quality news articles that you have read recently that you could try incorporating information from. But for now, you have been disrupting this article by repeatedly adding material that doesn't meet our editorial standards.
You’re not very good at sticking to the point being discussed here. I’ve highlighted the veracity of the source which you’ve failed to acknowledge and gone back into another long winded and patronising lecture, before reverting the edit again (I believe you described your behaviour as edit warring, previously?). PJPWv2 ( talk) 21:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
an email is not a reliable source of the calibre appropriate for an encyclopedia; even if it were then it would be a primary source and due weight is only demonstrated by secondary sources. This is my response, which you have not addressed yet.