|
Where did the facts come about Escobar’s new found son? I have proof that it is a lie LuctonLiarExposer ( talk) 00:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Please do not mark edits as "minor" when they are not - see WP:MINOR. Thanks. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 10:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 | Hello! Voting in the
2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate
your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to
Katherine Parkinson, it appears that you have added
original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses
combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the
tutorial on citing sources. It's inappropriate for Wikipedia to infer anything from a person not wearing a wedding ring on a TV show.
Lord Belbury (
talk) 10:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Makes perfect sense. Jaymailsays ( talk) 02:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The article Jérémie Laheurte has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{ prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ... discospinster talk 03:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I have added citations for this subject. Jaymailsays ( talk) 17:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, please see this edit summary of mine. Graham 87 09:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Jérémie Laheurte for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jérémie Laheurte until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article.
– bradv 🍁 04:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
The article Sasha Wass has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{ prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 08:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, work in progress, four citations added. Jaymailsays ( talk) 09:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
This Article has 9 citationsbut requires more. Jaymailsays ( talk) 23:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Total of 11 citations. Jaymailsays ( talk) 20:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Trudie Goodwin, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please cite better sources--and for all intents and purposes, what you did with that podcast just looked like pure promotion.
Drmies (
talk) 02:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I did not add the podcast, I simply reused it after hearing the subject describe their own life, why would she lie? Incidentally her historic stated birthday is incorrect but I will not provide the evidence, no point. Why did you remove her husband's details? Jaymailsays ( talk) 15:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hello, I'm
Sea Cow. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
Denazification, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to
include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
Sea Cow (
talk) 02:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Chiswick Chap. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
Christopher Lee, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at
referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Material has been stated to be unreliable, it is no use edit-warring about it. Lee is well-known to have invented "war stories".
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 14:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or
poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as
defamatory and is in violation of
Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. --
Hipal (
talk) 16:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's
biographies of living persons policy by inserting
unsourced or
poorly sourced
defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page. --
Hipal (
talk) 19:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- "Jaymailsays" is now posting defamatory information to the Amber Heard page. Demi26x ( talk) 21:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Defamatory? The factual citations on Amber Heard are well sourced and Court documents support 2010 first meeting. Otherwise it would be challenged as perjury. Jaymailsays ( talk) 22:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bob Henrit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Disc. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I'm seeking debate on the above at Talk:St Mark's, Hamilton Terrace#2023 fire: Is the church no longer a church?.-- A bit iffy ( talk) 20:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, in my opinion a Church is the congregation who worship within the confines of the place they regularly meet. A burnt out shell of a building cannot provide that facility, particularly when it becomes a dangerous structure. Often when a building is refurbished or extended,for worship, they will re-consecrate the ground due the perceived loss of sacredness during the changes whether planned or accidental. https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/is-the-church-a-people-or-a-place-2020-04/ Jaymailsays ( talk) 21:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
The brigade said "there were no injuries, though it noted the whole two-storey Anglican building was “destroyed”. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/27/st-marks-church-st-johns-wood-london-destroyed-by-fire Jaymailsays ( talk) 22:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Auditing Britain – photography is not a crime, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drone.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Liam Conlon for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liam Conlon until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
SmartSE ( talk) 12:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or
poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as
defamatory and is in violation of
Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. You've repeatedly added poorly sourced information which is not supported by the sources you've cited to
Liam Conlon. This is especially concerning given that it is obviously politically motivated.
SmartSE (
talk) 13:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Bit Rich! Butchering a biography edit still in progress to achieve deletion is unprofessional and flawed. Jaymailsays ( talk) 00:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Autoclaved aerated concrete, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AAC.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Neveselbert. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
David Cameron, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at
referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 19:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Novem Linguae. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
Isobel Yeung, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at
referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Twitter and other
self published sources are not reliable sources. Also please be careful of your capitalization and punctuation. Thanks, happy editing. –
Novem Linguae (
talk) 03:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, X formerly twitter citation was all that was available pending reviews of the Isobel Yeung broadcast that were made available today. I have added and chosen two citations.
- Dan Wootton
- You might be interested in seeing X used as a supporting citation for Dan Wootton's 40th birthday for his Wiki profile. Jaymailsays ( talk) 18:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1962 London smog, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DEFRA.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ricardo dos Santos (athlete), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
David Gerard. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a
citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning
how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Please stop deliberately re-adding
unreliable sources to biographies of living persons. If you continue to deliberately violate
WP:BLP, you risk sanctions. I urgently suggest you review
WP:BLP.
David Gerard (
talk) 19:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, Jaymailsays. I reverted this change of yours at John Pilger as WP:OR because "He could be truculent in interviews and show very little respect if he thought the questions were badly researched" seems to be your analysis of the video you used as a reference. I do think that your analysis is correct. But: If we wanted to include the statement "He could be truculent in interviews […]" in Wikipedia:Wiki voice we would need reliable sources to explicitly support that statement. Kind regards, Robby.is.on ( talk) 11:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to
[2]. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Hello, your article here (
/info/en/?search=Vanessa_Forero), did not meet WP:NPOV, and had sources blacklisted as unreliable per WP:RS
Please fix or consider drafting, as the article still may have issues. Cray04 ( talk) 04:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Paula Vennells shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Stifle ( talk) 09:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to
Elizabeth II, you added
links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see
Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you.
Remsense
诉 05:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Vanessa Forero
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Vanessa Forero requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Cray04 ( talk) 04:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
A: Because Wikipedia is sometimes unconsciously biased to warp-level due to the spectrum of editors, as has been demonstrated to you recently by the reversions and warnings. See [ [3]] [ [4]] [ [5]]. This is why resistance to recognising the role of Labour-appointee and backer Crozier is immediately apparent, while the very guilty Vennells is seen as fair game. My own position is far from right-wing; I have recently been attempting to get organisations formerly classified in Wiki as right-wing to be reclassified as far-right to recognise their drift over time. Albin-Counter ( talk) 00:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- We can't unravel 25yrs of PO mis-management here. There is an ongoing Public Inquiry into what has gone wrong. Prosecution threats would perhaps prevent Vennells (and others) from giving their evidence at the Inquiry. Time will tell, who if anyone will be held responsible. Jaymailsays ( talk) 01:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Since you too have detected the vandalism and/or truth suppression rife in these articles, and indeed I've assisted you against it please consider assisting here - [ [6]].
At 19:13 on 8 January 2024, I was reverted on my Wiki-exposure of in press coverage of a scandal in the (otherwise excellent) ITV docu-drama, which omitted any mention that their own ITV CEO for nearly 8 years (2010-2017) was Vennells' immediate predecessor (2003-2010) running the Post Office, and it was he not the guilty Vennells who embedded HORIZON and instituted or at least authorised the criminal prosecution of innocent PO staff.
I raised it here Talk:Mr_Bates_vs_The_Post_Office too. Please join in or, if you agree, even better undo 19:13 on 8 January 2024, the rogue deletion of pertinent material I put in. I hate those who assist, either out of inability to comprehend the significance or much worse than that, in this giant cover-up. Albin-Counter ( talk) 21:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Horizon was introduced in 1999, well before Crozier's tenure. The issue with Vennell's tenure is she hired forensic accountants, Second Sight and then fired them when their report correctly identified Horizon as buggy and faulty.
https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/12/second-sights-ron-warmington-breaks-his.html?m=1 She promptly terminated their contract. Thus the giant cover up by her was rolled out. Plus she added monies from the suspense account to the balance sheet as profit which increased the chances of bonus payments paid to executives.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 02:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I am about to deleted the Vennells Petition count matter from this Talk: channel, it was obviously an innocent error on your part confusing an archival version with the live one. Feel free to bring it back if you wish. ;-)
- I agree completely about the audacity and scale of Vennells' wrongdoing and likely criminal activities. She is a liar and justice would, IMO, be well-served by a custodial sentence augmented by utilising the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 w.r.t. her profit-related remuneration, where the profit was extorted from subpostmasters who in reality owed nothing. However, I am sceptical that we will witness anything close to justice in respect of this appalling creature.
- CEO Crozier, however, oversaw a large number of civil proceedings against subpostmasters whom he was surely in a position to know were innocent. The outrageous case, to which the docu-drama rightly devotes much attention, of Post Office v Castleton [2007] EWHC 5(QB), which started with events c2005, was well-within the tenure of Crozier. Please read the final section in Womble Bond Dickinson which provides links to Crozier's involvement.
- There's also:
- THE TIMES [ [7]] archived from paywalled [ [8]
- THE GUARDIAN - [ [9]
- THE DAILY TELEGRAPH - [ [10]] (Different article)
- LBC - [ [11]
- DAILY EXPRESS - [ [12]
- PRIVATE EYE - [ [13]
- BNN - [ [14]
- DIGITAL SPY - [ [15]
- I hesitate to cite a justly deprecated source, but, FWIW, here THE DAILY FAIL is on the money - [ [16]
- etc. as can be found by googling for Adam Crozier scandal.
- I see you too have noted the inherent left-wing bias here; you commented yourself on the absurdly biased BBC being preferred over GOV.UK as a source. Incredible. The relevance to this is almost all the blame for Vennells' actions, as distinct from what she inherited, can be attributed to the Conservatives and the Libdems (Ed Davey), except for Labour Leader "Sir" Keir Starmer forgetting that he was DPP for five years including Vennell's first three, and he could have taken over the wicked prosecutions from the Post Office and then dropped them, in effect quashing them. However, Adam Crozier and his papa were mates of Tony Bliar, and his appointment was under Labour; the socialist editgang will fight ruthlessly to keep any reckoning re Crozier suppressed. You are already experiencing and suffering from this mafia-like conduct in
Paula Vennells by the unscrupulous, confused or biased, in clear breach of NPOV... Why is the BBC not a deprecated source on Wiki is an excellent question, it is as bad as The Daily Mail. Hence I ask(ed) for your assistance in
Talk:Mr_Bates_vs_The_Post_Office.
Albin-Counter (
talk) 22:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- There were certainly prosecutions under Crozier's tenure but Horizon was signed off by Blair in 1999. Crozier may be a distraction from the big picture when the Post Office was conjoined with Royal Mail. Horizon were accessing branch accounts and changing the ledgers, yet the Post Office denied it was possible and claimed the software was infallible.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 23:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I see the Vennells page is now also getting arbitrary deletions of factual relevant information. One of the same persons who deleted your contributions in part.
- Also, there is more information at Adam Crozier. Albin-Counter ( talk) 13:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- There were certainly prosecutions under Crozier's tenure but Horizon was signed off by Blair in 1999. Crozier may be a distraction from the big picture when the Post Office was conjoined with Royal Mail. Horizon were accessing branch accounts and changing the ledgers, yet the Post Office denied it was possible and claimed the software was infallible.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 23:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Howdy. I'd recommend you stop trying to include your proposed info to Elizabeth II's page, without a consensus at the talkpage. Otherwise, you 'might' end up getting blocked by an administrator, for edit-warring. GoodDay ( talk) 22:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Jaymailsays, please take to talk. Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 22:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Jaymailsays Just to make sure that you know that People is a highly reliable source since it actively covers the British royal family and also many citations from them are present on the royals' pages. Further at times you will notice that People reports on news exclusively and also before the others at times. Hence its use is pretty much valid. Please dont revert in future any PEOPLE citations on pages of British royals. I hope you take this message seriously. Thank you and regards from MSincccc ( talk) 09:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- That may be your opinion but it is not backed up by consensus! Please try to act in a collaborative fashion as oppressive and authoritarian editing may have consequences.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 18:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- It is backed up by consensus, actually. WP:RSPSS marks it as generally reliable: "
there is consensus that People magazine can be a reliable source in biographies of living persons
", backed up with discussions here, here, here and here. Instead of making routine bogus threats to people who disagree with you just a little of WP:AGF would go a long way. Thanks. Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 11:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)- "Threats" Seriously?
- "Generally reliable" is not the same as having concrete credence to evidence of fact. 'People' is a tabloid with exaggerated headlines e.g., "It's a miracle I survived" is typical of their writing style, rather than informative substance. Find a better source for high profile individuals.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 16:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- "
'Generally reliable" is not the same as having concrete credence to evidence of fact'
" - well, as you yourself said, that may be your opinion but it is not backed up by consensus. "Generally reliable" means that you can use it freely, with limited exceptions on things like op-eds or for certain publications using it for certain topic areas: as WP:RSEDITORIAL says: "news reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact
". For the purposes of royalty reporting, People is reliable and can be used whenever. Your attempts to shut that down on Catherine, Princess of Wales were not exactly consensus-based, as that seems to be what's important to you. Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 18:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC) - I would personally cite People for non-controversial matters and that appears to be the general consensus among users; and it's a source that's regularly used in pages on high-profile individuals mostly to report on matters that relate to their personal lives. The fact that Catherine has had surgery is non-controversial; it's an established fact. Meanwhile, citing the palace's statement, which you did, goes against
WP:PRIMARY. When secondary sources report on a matter we should utilize them, not the primary ones. This was the ground for your edits being reverted, not the fact that you changed the wording of the sentence.
Keivan.f
Talk 18:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- The citing of the Palace statement is added value to give context to the secondary citings. We as the public have no idea whether she is in that hospital having surgery or not. She could be abroad for example. The media is relying on a single primary source based solely on the Palace statement. Having access to the Palace statement is best practice. Editing out the statement is akin to censorship reminiscent of the Chinese efforts on Tiananmen Square. Or the Post Office claiming "Horizon" is bug free. You had no grounds to revert an ethically sourced edit.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 20:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
The citing of the Palace statement is added value to give context to the secondary citings.
You did not cite it alongside a secondary source. You removed the secondary source and replaced it with the primary one. That is not acceptable.We as the public have no idea whether she is in that hospital having surgery or not. She could be abroad for example.
No, we actually do have an idea that she is in that hospital. Her husband was seen visiting her.Editing out the statement is akin to censorship reminiscent of the Chinese efforts on Tiananmen Square. Or the Post Office claiming "Horizon" is bug free. You had no grounds to revert an ethically sourced edit.
1) You removed a source that by consensus is generally reliable. 2) You threw in a primary source. The other editor had every right to revert. And since we are talking about censorship, citing primary sources would go exactly against the freedom of information. The Chinese government's stance on the Tiananmen Square massacre or the Russian government's explanations for their recent actions are all examples of primary sources that cannot and should not be trusted. And we cannot cherry-pick which primary sources we can or cannot trust; the general consensus is that they should be avoided when secondary ones are available. Keivan.f Talk 21:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)- "Her husband was seen leaving" Indeed! The staged appearance proves nothing though, except that he drove himself out of the building at the specified time, nothing more. A photo of the PoW entering the hospital herself would hold some credence. PoW mother would not have stayed away from her daughter this number of days, leaving her isolated from human contact. Everyone but everyone is relying on the Palace statement, there are no independent citations to confirm her admission to that hospital. They are certainly entitled to medical privacy until they issue a statement to the public opening up the issue.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 23:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
The staged appearance proves nothing though, except that he drove himself out of the building at the specified time, nothing more.
If you do not believe that he was visiting his wife, then you certainly should not believe a statement issued by Kensington Palace on his and Catherine's behalf and hence there would be no need to cite it.PoW mother would not have stayed away from her daughter this number of days, leaving her isolated from human contact.
1) This is speculation. 2) There have been reports of William visiting over the weekend without being photographed. The same could apply to her parents.Everyone but everyone is relying on the Palace statement, there are no independent citations to confirm her admission to that hospital.
Franky, the hospital at which she is being treated is a trivial matter. All that matters is that she has had a surgery. And I see no point in them lying about it. More importantly, anything that is not reported on by an independent source would be WP:OR. The only thing that has been reported so far is that she has had abdominal surgery and is hospitalised at the London Clinic, where incidentally Margaret and Philip were also treated. Keivan.f Talk 23:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)- Trivial? There is health speculation about the mother of a future Monarch and you call it trivial. I have no idea whether the speculation is true, what I know for certain is that the Palace issued a statement, when it became clear that the PoW could not fulfil planned official engagements leading up to Easter. A running commentary on her health is unnecessary on here.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 00:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I do agree that a running commentary is unnecessary, thus there is no need for speculation either. And yes, the hospital at which she is staying is a trivial piece of information. Important people get operated on every year; what matters is the nature of their problem or the type of surgery not necessarily where it was that they were being treated. Also, you either trust the Palace or you don't. Hence why I'm baffled by your initial insistence to cite their statement, when it appears that you are questioning their recent activities.
Keivan.f
Talk 00:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Trust the Palace?
- We mostly remember the Palace for example saying that royal couples have separated, "with no plans for divorce" then they divorce at the first opportunity. Or Diana will continue to be a HRH! When the Palace issue a statement we should cite it in its entirety and hold them to account as their future statements may be very different and vary on the very same subject.
- As for the name of the hospital, the only notable aspect that I can see, is that the PoW is being treated by a charitable foundation. So it looks as though the Princess will escape VAT on her medical hospitality and accommodation charges depriving the Treasury of income.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 08:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not here for us to make a point or hold people to account. We're not witch hunters. And even if we were, citing the palace source would make no difference, when secondary sources have already reported on it, so it is already a matter of public record. Also, when it comes to their statements and actions, literally thousands of couples get separated with no intention to divorce, yet, this is life and things can always go off the rail. Additionally, we have not seen Catherine's medical bills and that she is escaping VAT is also speculation. Finally, this is all irrelevant to the topic at hand. Keivan.f Talk 14:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- So you don't trust the Palace but replace a reliable secondary source with one of its statements? What? Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 16:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I do agree that a running commentary is unnecessary, thus there is no need for speculation either. And yes, the hospital at which she is staying is a trivial piece of information. Important people get operated on every year; what matters is the nature of their problem or the type of surgery not necessarily where it was that they were being treated. Also, you either trust the Palace or you don't. Hence why I'm baffled by your initial insistence to cite their statement, when it appears that you are questioning their recent activities.
Keivan.f
Talk 00:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Trivial? There is health speculation about the mother of a future Monarch and you call it trivial. I have no idea whether the speculation is true, what I know for certain is that the Palace issued a statement, when it became clear that the PoW could not fulfil planned official engagements leading up to Easter. A running commentary on her health is unnecessary on here.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 00:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- "Her husband was seen leaving" Indeed! The staged appearance proves nothing though, except that he drove himself out of the building at the specified time, nothing more. A photo of the PoW entering the hospital herself would hold some credence. PoW mother would not have stayed away from her daughter this number of days, leaving her isolated from human contact. Everyone but everyone is relying on the Palace statement, there are no independent citations to confirm her admission to that hospital. They are certainly entitled to medical privacy until they issue a statement to the public opening up the issue.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 23:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hang on, you're saying that a Post Office statement re Horizon / Fujitsu, used as a primary source, would be a reliable one? Are you joking?
Tim O'Doherty (
talk) 21:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Please refrain from inventing meanings that are not there. I will not respond further to your talk posts on this subject.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 22:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well, what did you mean? Because if you didn't mean that you clearly don't mean what you say. Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 22:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Please refrain from inventing meanings that are not there. I will not respond further to your talk posts on this subject.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 22:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- The citing of the Palace statement is added value to give context to the secondary citings. We as the public have no idea whether she is in that hospital having surgery or not. She could be abroad for example. The media is relying on a single primary source based solely on the Palace statement. Having access to the Palace statement is best practice. Editing out the statement is akin to censorship reminiscent of the Chinese efforts on Tiananmen Square. Or the Post Office claiming "Horizon" is bug free. You had no grounds to revert an ethically sourced edit.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 20:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- "
- It is backed up by consensus, actually. WP:RSPSS marks it as generally reliable: "
- It's pretty much tabloid trash and on its own cannot be relied upon
Jaymailsays (
talk) 23:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- If your problem is with People stating that she's being treated at the London Clinic,
here's
The Guardian stating the same thing. And I'm sorry, nobody would agree to removing the hospital name simply because you're 'speculating' that she might be hospitalized somewhere else.
Keivan.f
Talk 00:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ironic the Guardian is reporting on the Palace statement and carries it in full quotes whereas on here, there is denial.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 01:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Understand the policy, please. For a matter to be considered of utmost importance, secondary sources have to report on it. "Significant coverage is secondary sources" is required for any biographical article per
WP:GNG. Otherwise we would have pages on utterly unimportant topics attributed to primary sources that would naturally be biased in favor or maybe even against a subject. And I explained why primary sources cannot be used; the Palace in this instance IS a primary source. Secondly, please pick a position and stick with it. You are upset about the Palace statement being excluded yet earlier on you were implying that the subject's husband could be faking a hospital visit. So which is it then? Are they or their team reliable or not? And what
Tim O'Doherty was asking was concerning your conflicting approach regarding this matter. Citing the Palace, a primary source in this instance, is exactly like citing the Post Office on a matter related to the Horizon scandal.
Keivan.f
Talk 01:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- @
Keivan.f,@
Jaymailsays and @
Tim O'Doherty The matter is clear. When the secondary sources are required, and People, BBC News, Guardian, etc. all are equally appropriate to use, the one that was used first should stay lest there is a vry extraordinary reason to do so. Hence the BBC News and People citations should stay. I hope it’s clear to you all. Regards
MSincccc (
talk) 03:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Those two will indeed stay. I added The Guardian as an even stronger secondary source to back up the claims made within the page. Frankly, that's all the information we got and making speculations will not get us anywhere. Citing the Palace statement also would not make any difference. Keivan.f Talk 03:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- @
Keivan.f,@
Jaymailsays and @
Tim O'Doherty The matter is clear. When the secondary sources are required, and People, BBC News, Guardian, etc. all are equally appropriate to use, the one that was used first should stay lest there is a vry extraordinary reason to do so. Hence the BBC News and People citations should stay. I hope it’s clear to you all. Regards
MSincccc (
talk) 03:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Understand the policy, please. For a matter to be considered of utmost importance, secondary sources have to report on it. "Significant coverage is secondary sources" is required for any biographical article per
WP:GNG. Otherwise we would have pages on utterly unimportant topics attributed to primary sources that would naturally be biased in favor or maybe even against a subject. And I explained why primary sources cannot be used; the Palace in this instance IS a primary source. Secondly, please pick a position and stick with it. You are upset about the Palace statement being excluded yet earlier on you were implying that the subject's husband could be faking a hospital visit. So which is it then? Are they or their team reliable or not? And what
Tim O'Doherty was asking was concerning your conflicting approach regarding this matter. Citing the Palace, a primary source in this instance, is exactly like citing the Post Office on a matter related to the Horizon scandal.
Keivan.f
Talk 01:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ironic the Guardian is reporting on the Palace statement and carries it in full quotes whereas on here, there is denial.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 01:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- If your problem is with People stating that she's being treated at the London Clinic,
here's
The Guardian stating the same thing. And I'm sorry, nobody would agree to removing the hospital name simply because you're 'speculating' that she might be hospitalized somewhere else.
Keivan.f
Talk 00:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Discussion invitation: Brendan Kavanagh
Message added 22:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Archer1234 ( t· c) 22:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Kindly note that there are no Wikipedia policies specifically banning World Journal per
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It might have a pro-Pan Blue bias but that doesn't make it unreliable, specially since they took words from the Chinese group's side. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
120.17.42.191 (
talk) 09:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- The above IP is a vandal, see current discussion [17] Psychologist Guy ( talk) 05:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
With respect to a couple of your recent edits I recommend that you read and digest the following:
-- DeFacto ( talk). 08:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as
vandalism, such as the edit at
Brendan Kavanagh, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can
discourage editors. Please see
what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. —
Archer1234 (
t·
c) 22:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Your recent
Bold
at
Brendan Kavanagh was
Reverted. Per
BRD, it's time to
Discuss this on the talk page. Please don't
edit war by reinstating the edit. Let's see if a
consensus can form to keep it or an alternate version. —
Archer1234 (
t·
c) 22:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --
Dustfreeworld (
talk) 09:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michelle O'Neill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 17:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Changed the link, to specify Irish People. Jaymailsays ( talk) 00:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, the news was only published today, The BBC Press release states he died yesterday https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/steve-wright-mbe Ioangogo ( talk) 18:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics - gender and sexuality, biographies of living or recently deceased people
You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
You have recently made edits related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see
Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 04:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Murder of Brianna Ghey. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
- 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 and 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. Per WP:BRD, MOS:GENDERID, and the long standing consensus on the article talk page, please self-revert this edit. Thank you. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 04:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Also, please do not remove reliable sources and leave sentences unverifiable as you did in this edit. Thanks. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 04:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to
Tucker Carlson, did not appear to be constructive and have been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our
policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about
contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use
your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Elvisisalive95 (
talk) 17:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Also, please do not remove reliable sources and leave sentences unverifiable as you did in this edit. Thank you. Elvisisalive95 ( talk) 17:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Murder of Brianna Ghey shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have made four reverts to the article in the last 15 hours (
[18],
[19],
[20],
[21]). Please self-revert immediately and discuss this on the
article talk page.
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 17:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing to the article
Bob Stewart (politician). However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be
verifiable and attributed to
reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or
mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a
circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at
Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at
Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you.
Sam Kuru
(talk) 14:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, with regards to your edit on Bob Stewart (politician), isn't your reason of "The Parliamentary Constituency will cease to exist, in its current form at the next General Election, which could have influenced Stewart's decision to stand down" just speculation? You could also point out the fact that Stewart is 74 years old and has been an MP for the relatively long time of 14 years. Other MPs who are stepping down don't have similar information in their page, instead it's just on the page of the constituency. Ellwat ( talk) 21:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- His age is in the bio lead! There are many MPs older than him that are not retiring. Beckenham is currently a safe Tory seat but at the next election due to boundary changes, the seat is veritably unsafe from that date onwards. Nothing speculative about it, once you factor in Penge.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 22:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I get that but you're still speculating as to why he stood down. Doesn't this fall under
WP:UNDUE? No need to point this out if it's not been explicitly mentioned in the media.
Ellwat (
talk) 22:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, The boundary changes are fact, it is upto the reader to speculate if they want to. Stewart is innocent of all CPS allegations, it was clear to many, the allegations were false and potentially maliciously motivated and had he not been notable, he would never have been prosecuted. That said, he could have applied to be a candidate for another seat, but because the Whip had been withdrawn, he wasn't eligible to do that. With a very different Constituency make-up next time, he had little choice but to retire.
- If the purpose of the Article is to be encyclopedic, the information ought to be transparently available. Jaymailsays ( talk) 23:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I get that but you're still speculating as to why he stood down. Doesn't this fall under
WP:UNDUE? No need to point this out if it's not been explicitly mentioned in the media.
Ellwat (
talk) 22:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to
the Troubles. This is a standard message to inform you that
the Troubles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally editors are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours in this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see
Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
Kathleen's bike (
talk) 18:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Jaymailsays, I've left you a message at Talk:Where is Kate?. Specifically, I believe you have added a claim into the article which does not come from a sufficiently reliable source for its inclusion to Wikipedia at this time. I realise editors have previously sent you warnings about using sources of unknown or dubious reliability when it comes to editing BLP pages, and think it's important these things are flagged at user talkpages if they are symptomatic of broader editing practices. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk) 01:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
MOS:SEEALSO discourages external links in see also sections, and footnotes on a see also link don't seem to make any sense. If the linked article exists and its topic is notable, what statement is the footnote source meant to be supporting?
If you think the Garrick Club article should include some content about women's clubs in London for, as you say, "balance", put that in the article text. Belbury ( talk) 10:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Jaymailsays. Thank you. Kathleen's bike ( talk) 16:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
[22]
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 20:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Where is Kate? for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Please can you reconsider your decision and unblock my account. Thanks Jaymailsays ( talk) 03:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@ ScottishFinnishRadish: User is requesting unblock, but the unblock request is mangled beyond my ability to repair. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 06:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- However, @
Jaymailsays:, there is a consensus in
the enforcement request to block you. You have not addressed the reasons for the block
-- Deepfriedokra (
talk) 06:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- The reasons for the block are unclear and have not been explained. I brought my concerns to talk page and they were largly ignored. It seems very odd that I can be blocked yet the blocker can not undo the block? I've hardly edited this last week, and the previous edits to Irish history were agreed except by one user who has trolled my edits. Jaymailsays ( talk) 12:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Any unblock request would need to be handled at AE or AN.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 09:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Can you give me a direct link please, instead of using shorthand. An indefinite block is disproportionate, especially when my pleading was ignored.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 17:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- The reasons for your block are outlined at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jaymailsays. You may need to search the archives if the section is archived. As the block notice says, you need to use the unblock template on this talk page, explaining why your block should be reviewed:
- Place the following on your talk page:
{{ unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 17:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)- In that case, 331dot and Wikipedian administrators, you have all failed to act fairly and impartially towards me.
- Can you give me a direct link please, instead of using shorthand. An indefinite block is disproportionate, especially when my pleading was ignored.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 17:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
As a UK resident, I exercise and give notice here, of my right to be forgotten under GDPR.
- All public references to my user name, IP address or other identifying data, should be anonymised by Wikipedia forthwith, or suffer the consequences from the Information Commissioner in due course on the expiry of 14 days from todays date, 11 April 2024.
- I will not entertain any further excuses or mitigation for the way your processing of my appeal has been so poorly and ineptly mishandled.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 17:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- You might be interested in reading
WP:VANISH.
IgnatiusofLondon (he/him •
☎️) 21:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have exercised my right under UK law relating to GDPR to be forgotten permanently by Wikipedia.
- I would also propose that whoever hides behind @
331dot should be removed as an administrator as they clearly do not have the interests of editors in general as their prime ethos. A sockpuppet reported me for an alleged ethical edit and instead of investigating they lazily sided with them. On the expiry of the 14th day, if compliance with my rights to be forgotten are ignored, I shall impose a financial penalty.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 21:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- In this case, you will need to remain blocked for making legal threats. UK law does not apply to the US, not since 1776. 331dot ( talk) 22:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- You might be interested in reading
WP:VANISH.
IgnatiusofLondon (he/him •
☎️) 21:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
( talk) 18:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Jaymailsays ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Your reason This is my talk page and I have fully explained my reasons previously. We're going round in circles. Jaymailsays ( talk) 23:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This isn't how this works. No one may unilaterally remove this block; you must appeal as instructed and write a statement for transfer to a noticeboard. 331dot ( talk) 00:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
- You are welcome to pursue any legal options you wish, but you do not get to continue disrupting the encyclopedia while doing so.-- Ponyo bons mots 22:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Jaymailsays. Thank you for your work on David Sherborne. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Nice work
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
North8000 ( talk) 19:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Where did the facts come about Escobar’s new found son? I have proof that it is a lie LuctonLiarExposer ( talk) 00:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Please do not mark edits as "minor" when they are not - see WP:MINOR. Thanks. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 10:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate
your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to
Katherine Parkinson, it appears that you have added
original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses
combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the
tutorial on citing sources. It's inappropriate for Wikipedia to infer anything from a person not wearing a wedding ring on a TV show.
Lord Belbury (
talk) 10:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Makes perfect sense. Jaymailsays ( talk) 02:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The article Jérémie Laheurte has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{ prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ... discospinster talk 03:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I have added citations for this subject. Jaymailsays ( talk) 17:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, please see this edit summary of mine. Graham 87 09:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Jérémie Laheurte for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jérémie Laheurte until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article.
– bradv 🍁 04:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
The article Sasha Wass has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{ prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 08:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, work in progress, four citations added. Jaymailsays ( talk) 09:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
This Article has 9 citationsbut requires more. Jaymailsays ( talk) 23:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Total of 11 citations. Jaymailsays ( talk) 20:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Trudie Goodwin, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please cite better sources--and for all intents and purposes, what you did with that podcast just looked like pure promotion.
Drmies (
talk) 02:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I did not add the podcast, I simply reused it after hearing the subject describe their own life, why would she lie? Incidentally her historic stated birthday is incorrect but I will not provide the evidence, no point. Why did you remove her husband's details? Jaymailsays ( talk) 15:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hello, I'm
Sea Cow. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
Denazification, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to
include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
Sea Cow (
talk) 02:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Chiswick Chap. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
Christopher Lee, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at
referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Material has been stated to be unreliable, it is no use edit-warring about it. Lee is well-known to have invented "war stories".
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 14:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or
poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as
defamatory and is in violation of
Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. --
Hipal (
talk) 16:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's
biographies of living persons policy by inserting
unsourced or
poorly sourced
defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page. --
Hipal (
talk) 19:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- "Jaymailsays" is now posting defamatory information to the Amber Heard page. Demi26x ( talk) 21:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Defamatory? The factual citations on Amber Heard are well sourced and Court documents support 2010 first meeting. Otherwise it would be challenged as perjury. Jaymailsays ( talk) 22:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bob Henrit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Disc. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I'm seeking debate on the above at Talk:St Mark's, Hamilton Terrace#2023 fire: Is the church no longer a church?.-- A bit iffy ( talk) 20:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, in my opinion a Church is the congregation who worship within the confines of the place they regularly meet. A burnt out shell of a building cannot provide that facility, particularly when it becomes a dangerous structure. Often when a building is refurbished or extended,for worship, they will re-consecrate the ground due the perceived loss of sacredness during the changes whether planned or accidental. https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/is-the-church-a-people-or-a-place-2020-04/ Jaymailsays ( talk) 21:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
The brigade said "there were no injuries, though it noted the whole two-storey Anglican building was “destroyed”. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/27/st-marks-church-st-johns-wood-london-destroyed-by-fire Jaymailsays ( talk) 22:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Auditing Britain – photography is not a crime, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drone.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Liam Conlon for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liam Conlon until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
SmartSE ( talk) 12:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or
poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as
defamatory and is in violation of
Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. You've repeatedly added poorly sourced information which is not supported by the sources you've cited to
Liam Conlon. This is especially concerning given that it is obviously politically motivated.
SmartSE (
talk) 13:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Bit Rich! Butchering a biography edit still in progress to achieve deletion is unprofessional and flawed. Jaymailsays ( talk) 00:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Autoclaved aerated concrete, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AAC.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Neveselbert. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
David Cameron, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at
referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 19:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Novem Linguae. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
Isobel Yeung, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at
referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Twitter and other
self published sources are not reliable sources. Also please be careful of your capitalization and punctuation. Thanks, happy editing. –
Novem Linguae (
talk) 03:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, X formerly twitter citation was all that was available pending reviews of the Isobel Yeung broadcast that were made available today. I have added and chosen two citations.
- Dan Wootton
- You might be interested in seeing X used as a supporting citation for Dan Wootton's 40th birthday for his Wiki profile. Jaymailsays ( talk) 18:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1962 London smog, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DEFRA.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ricardo dos Santos (athlete), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
David Gerard. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a
citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning
how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Please stop deliberately re-adding
unreliable sources to biographies of living persons. If you continue to deliberately violate
WP:BLP, you risk sanctions. I urgently suggest you review
WP:BLP.
David Gerard (
talk) 19:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, Jaymailsays. I reverted this change of yours at John Pilger as WP:OR because "He could be truculent in interviews and show very little respect if he thought the questions were badly researched" seems to be your analysis of the video you used as a reference. I do think that your analysis is correct. But: If we wanted to include the statement "He could be truculent in interviews […]" in Wikipedia:Wiki voice we would need reliable sources to explicitly support that statement. Kind regards, Robby.is.on ( talk) 11:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to
[2]. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Hello, your article here (
/info/en/?search=Vanessa_Forero), did not meet WP:NPOV, and had sources blacklisted as unreliable per WP:RS
Please fix or consider drafting, as the article still may have issues. Cray04 ( talk) 04:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Paula Vennells shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Stifle ( talk) 09:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to
Elizabeth II, you added
links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see
Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you.
Remsense
诉 05:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Vanessa Forero
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Vanessa Forero requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Cray04 ( talk) 04:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
A: Because Wikipedia is sometimes unconsciously biased to warp-level due to the spectrum of editors, as has been demonstrated to you recently by the reversions and warnings. See [ [3]] [ [4]] [ [5]]. This is why resistance to recognising the role of Labour-appointee and backer Crozier is immediately apparent, while the very guilty Vennells is seen as fair game. My own position is far from right-wing; I have recently been attempting to get organisations formerly classified in Wiki as right-wing to be reclassified as far-right to recognise their drift over time. Albin-Counter ( talk) 00:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- We can't unravel 25yrs of PO mis-management here. There is an ongoing Public Inquiry into what has gone wrong. Prosecution threats would perhaps prevent Vennells (and others) from giving their evidence at the Inquiry. Time will tell, who if anyone will be held responsible. Jaymailsays ( talk) 01:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Since you too have detected the vandalism and/or truth suppression rife in these articles, and indeed I've assisted you against it please consider assisting here - [ [6]].
At 19:13 on 8 January 2024, I was reverted on my Wiki-exposure of in press coverage of a scandal in the (otherwise excellent) ITV docu-drama, which omitted any mention that their own ITV CEO for nearly 8 years (2010-2017) was Vennells' immediate predecessor (2003-2010) running the Post Office, and it was he not the guilty Vennells who embedded HORIZON and instituted or at least authorised the criminal prosecution of innocent PO staff.
I raised it here Talk:Mr_Bates_vs_The_Post_Office too. Please join in or, if you agree, even better undo 19:13 on 8 January 2024, the rogue deletion of pertinent material I put in. I hate those who assist, either out of inability to comprehend the significance or much worse than that, in this giant cover-up. Albin-Counter ( talk) 21:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Horizon was introduced in 1999, well before Crozier's tenure. The issue with Vennell's tenure is she hired forensic accountants, Second Sight and then fired them when their report correctly identified Horizon as buggy and faulty.
https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/12/second-sights-ron-warmington-breaks-his.html?m=1 She promptly terminated their contract. Thus the giant cover up by her was rolled out. Plus she added monies from the suspense account to the balance sheet as profit which increased the chances of bonus payments paid to executives.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 02:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I am about to deleted the Vennells Petition count matter from this Talk: channel, it was obviously an innocent error on your part confusing an archival version with the live one. Feel free to bring it back if you wish. ;-)
- I agree completely about the audacity and scale of Vennells' wrongdoing and likely criminal activities. She is a liar and justice would, IMO, be well-served by a custodial sentence augmented by utilising the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 w.r.t. her profit-related remuneration, where the profit was extorted from subpostmasters who in reality owed nothing. However, I am sceptical that we will witness anything close to justice in respect of this appalling creature.
- CEO Crozier, however, oversaw a large number of civil proceedings against subpostmasters whom he was surely in a position to know were innocent. The outrageous case, to which the docu-drama rightly devotes much attention, of Post Office v Castleton [2007] EWHC 5(QB), which started with events c2005, was well-within the tenure of Crozier. Please read the final section in Womble Bond Dickinson which provides links to Crozier's involvement.
- There's also:
- THE TIMES [ [7]] archived from paywalled [ [8]
- THE GUARDIAN - [ [9]
- THE DAILY TELEGRAPH - [ [10]] (Different article)
- LBC - [ [11]
- DAILY EXPRESS - [ [12]
- PRIVATE EYE - [ [13]
- BNN - [ [14]
- DIGITAL SPY - [ [15]
- I hesitate to cite a justly deprecated source, but, FWIW, here THE DAILY FAIL is on the money - [ [16]
- etc. as can be found by googling for Adam Crozier scandal.
- I see you too have noted the inherent left-wing bias here; you commented yourself on the absurdly biased BBC being preferred over GOV.UK as a source. Incredible. The relevance to this is almost all the blame for Vennells' actions, as distinct from what she inherited, can be attributed to the Conservatives and the Libdems (Ed Davey), except for Labour Leader "Sir" Keir Starmer forgetting that he was DPP for five years including Vennell's first three, and he could have taken over the wicked prosecutions from the Post Office and then dropped them, in effect quashing them. However, Adam Crozier and his papa were mates of Tony Bliar, and his appointment was under Labour; the socialist editgang will fight ruthlessly to keep any reckoning re Crozier suppressed. You are already experiencing and suffering from this mafia-like conduct in
Paula Vennells by the unscrupulous, confused or biased, in clear breach of NPOV... Why is the BBC not a deprecated source on Wiki is an excellent question, it is as bad as The Daily Mail. Hence I ask(ed) for your assistance in
Talk:Mr_Bates_vs_The_Post_Office.
Albin-Counter (
talk) 22:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- There were certainly prosecutions under Crozier's tenure but Horizon was signed off by Blair in 1999. Crozier may be a distraction from the big picture when the Post Office was conjoined with Royal Mail. Horizon were accessing branch accounts and changing the ledgers, yet the Post Office denied it was possible and claimed the software was infallible.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 23:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I see the Vennells page is now also getting arbitrary deletions of factual relevant information. One of the same persons who deleted your contributions in part.
- Also, there is more information at Adam Crozier. Albin-Counter ( talk) 13:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- There were certainly prosecutions under Crozier's tenure but Horizon was signed off by Blair in 1999. Crozier may be a distraction from the big picture when the Post Office was conjoined with Royal Mail. Horizon were accessing branch accounts and changing the ledgers, yet the Post Office denied it was possible and claimed the software was infallible.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 23:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Howdy. I'd recommend you stop trying to include your proposed info to Elizabeth II's page, without a consensus at the talkpage. Otherwise, you 'might' end up getting blocked by an administrator, for edit-warring. GoodDay ( talk) 22:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Jaymailsays, please take to talk. Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 22:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Jaymailsays Just to make sure that you know that People is a highly reliable source since it actively covers the British royal family and also many citations from them are present on the royals' pages. Further at times you will notice that People reports on news exclusively and also before the others at times. Hence its use is pretty much valid. Please dont revert in future any PEOPLE citations on pages of British royals. I hope you take this message seriously. Thank you and regards from MSincccc ( talk) 09:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- That may be your opinion but it is not backed up by consensus! Please try to act in a collaborative fashion as oppressive and authoritarian editing may have consequences.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 18:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- It is backed up by consensus, actually. WP:RSPSS marks it as generally reliable: "
there is consensus that People magazine can be a reliable source in biographies of living persons
", backed up with discussions here, here, here and here. Instead of making routine bogus threats to people who disagree with you just a little of WP:AGF would go a long way. Thanks. Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 11:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)- "Threats" Seriously?
- "Generally reliable" is not the same as having concrete credence to evidence of fact. 'People' is a tabloid with exaggerated headlines e.g., "It's a miracle I survived" is typical of their writing style, rather than informative substance. Find a better source for high profile individuals.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 16:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- "
'Generally reliable" is not the same as having concrete credence to evidence of fact'
" - well, as you yourself said, that may be your opinion but it is not backed up by consensus. "Generally reliable" means that you can use it freely, with limited exceptions on things like op-eds or for certain publications using it for certain topic areas: as WP:RSEDITORIAL says: "news reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact
". For the purposes of royalty reporting, People is reliable and can be used whenever. Your attempts to shut that down on Catherine, Princess of Wales were not exactly consensus-based, as that seems to be what's important to you. Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 18:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC) - I would personally cite People for non-controversial matters and that appears to be the general consensus among users; and it's a source that's regularly used in pages on high-profile individuals mostly to report on matters that relate to their personal lives. The fact that Catherine has had surgery is non-controversial; it's an established fact. Meanwhile, citing the palace's statement, which you did, goes against
WP:PRIMARY. When secondary sources report on a matter we should utilize them, not the primary ones. This was the ground for your edits being reverted, not the fact that you changed the wording of the sentence.
Keivan.f
Talk 18:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- The citing of the Palace statement is added value to give context to the secondary citings. We as the public have no idea whether she is in that hospital having surgery or not. She could be abroad for example. The media is relying on a single primary source based solely on the Palace statement. Having access to the Palace statement is best practice. Editing out the statement is akin to censorship reminiscent of the Chinese efforts on Tiananmen Square. Or the Post Office claiming "Horizon" is bug free. You had no grounds to revert an ethically sourced edit.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 20:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
The citing of the Palace statement is added value to give context to the secondary citings.
You did not cite it alongside a secondary source. You removed the secondary source and replaced it with the primary one. That is not acceptable.We as the public have no idea whether she is in that hospital having surgery or not. She could be abroad for example.
No, we actually do have an idea that she is in that hospital. Her husband was seen visiting her.Editing out the statement is akin to censorship reminiscent of the Chinese efforts on Tiananmen Square. Or the Post Office claiming "Horizon" is bug free. You had no grounds to revert an ethically sourced edit.
1) You removed a source that by consensus is generally reliable. 2) You threw in a primary source. The other editor had every right to revert. And since we are talking about censorship, citing primary sources would go exactly against the freedom of information. The Chinese government's stance on the Tiananmen Square massacre or the Russian government's explanations for their recent actions are all examples of primary sources that cannot and should not be trusted. And we cannot cherry-pick which primary sources we can or cannot trust; the general consensus is that they should be avoided when secondary ones are available. Keivan.f Talk 21:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)- "Her husband was seen leaving" Indeed! The staged appearance proves nothing though, except that he drove himself out of the building at the specified time, nothing more. A photo of the PoW entering the hospital herself would hold some credence. PoW mother would not have stayed away from her daughter this number of days, leaving her isolated from human contact. Everyone but everyone is relying on the Palace statement, there are no independent citations to confirm her admission to that hospital. They are certainly entitled to medical privacy until they issue a statement to the public opening up the issue.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 23:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
The staged appearance proves nothing though, except that he drove himself out of the building at the specified time, nothing more.
If you do not believe that he was visiting his wife, then you certainly should not believe a statement issued by Kensington Palace on his and Catherine's behalf and hence there would be no need to cite it.PoW mother would not have stayed away from her daughter this number of days, leaving her isolated from human contact.
1) This is speculation. 2) There have been reports of William visiting over the weekend without being photographed. The same could apply to her parents.Everyone but everyone is relying on the Palace statement, there are no independent citations to confirm her admission to that hospital.
Franky, the hospital at which she is being treated is a trivial matter. All that matters is that she has had a surgery. And I see no point in them lying about it. More importantly, anything that is not reported on by an independent source would be WP:OR. The only thing that has been reported so far is that she has had abdominal surgery and is hospitalised at the London Clinic, where incidentally Margaret and Philip were also treated. Keivan.f Talk 23:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)- Trivial? There is health speculation about the mother of a future Monarch and you call it trivial. I have no idea whether the speculation is true, what I know for certain is that the Palace issued a statement, when it became clear that the PoW could not fulfil planned official engagements leading up to Easter. A running commentary on her health is unnecessary on here.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 00:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I do agree that a running commentary is unnecessary, thus there is no need for speculation either. And yes, the hospital at which she is staying is a trivial piece of information. Important people get operated on every year; what matters is the nature of their problem or the type of surgery not necessarily where it was that they were being treated. Also, you either trust the Palace or you don't. Hence why I'm baffled by your initial insistence to cite their statement, when it appears that you are questioning their recent activities.
Keivan.f
Talk 00:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Trust the Palace?
- We mostly remember the Palace for example saying that royal couples have separated, "with no plans for divorce" then they divorce at the first opportunity. Or Diana will continue to be a HRH! When the Palace issue a statement we should cite it in its entirety and hold them to account as their future statements may be very different and vary on the very same subject.
- As for the name of the hospital, the only notable aspect that I can see, is that the PoW is being treated by a charitable foundation. So it looks as though the Princess will escape VAT on her medical hospitality and accommodation charges depriving the Treasury of income.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 08:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not here for us to make a point or hold people to account. We're not witch hunters. And even if we were, citing the palace source would make no difference, when secondary sources have already reported on it, so it is already a matter of public record. Also, when it comes to their statements and actions, literally thousands of couples get separated with no intention to divorce, yet, this is life and things can always go off the rail. Additionally, we have not seen Catherine's medical bills and that she is escaping VAT is also speculation. Finally, this is all irrelevant to the topic at hand. Keivan.f Talk 14:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- So you don't trust the Palace but replace a reliable secondary source with one of its statements? What? Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 16:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I do agree that a running commentary is unnecessary, thus there is no need for speculation either. And yes, the hospital at which she is staying is a trivial piece of information. Important people get operated on every year; what matters is the nature of their problem or the type of surgery not necessarily where it was that they were being treated. Also, you either trust the Palace or you don't. Hence why I'm baffled by your initial insistence to cite their statement, when it appears that you are questioning their recent activities.
Keivan.f
Talk 00:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Trivial? There is health speculation about the mother of a future Monarch and you call it trivial. I have no idea whether the speculation is true, what I know for certain is that the Palace issued a statement, when it became clear that the PoW could not fulfil planned official engagements leading up to Easter. A running commentary on her health is unnecessary on here.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 00:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- "Her husband was seen leaving" Indeed! The staged appearance proves nothing though, except that he drove himself out of the building at the specified time, nothing more. A photo of the PoW entering the hospital herself would hold some credence. PoW mother would not have stayed away from her daughter this number of days, leaving her isolated from human contact. Everyone but everyone is relying on the Palace statement, there are no independent citations to confirm her admission to that hospital. They are certainly entitled to medical privacy until they issue a statement to the public opening up the issue.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 23:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hang on, you're saying that a Post Office statement re Horizon / Fujitsu, used as a primary source, would be a reliable one? Are you joking?
Tim O'Doherty (
talk) 21:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Please refrain from inventing meanings that are not there. I will not respond further to your talk posts on this subject.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 22:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well, what did you mean? Because if you didn't mean that you clearly don't mean what you say. Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 22:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Please refrain from inventing meanings that are not there. I will not respond further to your talk posts on this subject.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 22:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- The citing of the Palace statement is added value to give context to the secondary citings. We as the public have no idea whether she is in that hospital having surgery or not. She could be abroad for example. The media is relying on a single primary source based solely on the Palace statement. Having access to the Palace statement is best practice. Editing out the statement is akin to censorship reminiscent of the Chinese efforts on Tiananmen Square. Or the Post Office claiming "Horizon" is bug free. You had no grounds to revert an ethically sourced edit.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 20:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- "
- It is backed up by consensus, actually. WP:RSPSS marks it as generally reliable: "
- It's pretty much tabloid trash and on its own cannot be relied upon
Jaymailsays (
talk) 23:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- If your problem is with People stating that she's being treated at the London Clinic,
here's
The Guardian stating the same thing. And I'm sorry, nobody would agree to removing the hospital name simply because you're 'speculating' that she might be hospitalized somewhere else.
Keivan.f
Talk 00:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ironic the Guardian is reporting on the Palace statement and carries it in full quotes whereas on here, there is denial.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 01:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Understand the policy, please. For a matter to be considered of utmost importance, secondary sources have to report on it. "Significant coverage is secondary sources" is required for any biographical article per
WP:GNG. Otherwise we would have pages on utterly unimportant topics attributed to primary sources that would naturally be biased in favor or maybe even against a subject. And I explained why primary sources cannot be used; the Palace in this instance IS a primary source. Secondly, please pick a position and stick with it. You are upset about the Palace statement being excluded yet earlier on you were implying that the subject's husband could be faking a hospital visit. So which is it then? Are they or their team reliable or not? And what
Tim O'Doherty was asking was concerning your conflicting approach regarding this matter. Citing the Palace, a primary source in this instance, is exactly like citing the Post Office on a matter related to the Horizon scandal.
Keivan.f
Talk 01:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- @
Keivan.f,@
Jaymailsays and @
Tim O'Doherty The matter is clear. When the secondary sources are required, and People, BBC News, Guardian, etc. all are equally appropriate to use, the one that was used first should stay lest there is a vry extraordinary reason to do so. Hence the BBC News and People citations should stay. I hope it’s clear to you all. Regards
MSincccc (
talk) 03:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Those two will indeed stay. I added The Guardian as an even stronger secondary source to back up the claims made within the page. Frankly, that's all the information we got and making speculations will not get us anywhere. Citing the Palace statement also would not make any difference. Keivan.f Talk 03:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- @
Keivan.f,@
Jaymailsays and @
Tim O'Doherty The matter is clear. When the secondary sources are required, and People, BBC News, Guardian, etc. all are equally appropriate to use, the one that was used first should stay lest there is a vry extraordinary reason to do so. Hence the BBC News and People citations should stay. I hope it’s clear to you all. Regards
MSincccc (
talk) 03:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Understand the policy, please. For a matter to be considered of utmost importance, secondary sources have to report on it. "Significant coverage is secondary sources" is required for any biographical article per
WP:GNG. Otherwise we would have pages on utterly unimportant topics attributed to primary sources that would naturally be biased in favor or maybe even against a subject. And I explained why primary sources cannot be used; the Palace in this instance IS a primary source. Secondly, please pick a position and stick with it. You are upset about the Palace statement being excluded yet earlier on you were implying that the subject's husband could be faking a hospital visit. So which is it then? Are they or their team reliable or not? And what
Tim O'Doherty was asking was concerning your conflicting approach regarding this matter. Citing the Palace, a primary source in this instance, is exactly like citing the Post Office on a matter related to the Horizon scandal.
Keivan.f
Talk 01:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ironic the Guardian is reporting on the Palace statement and carries it in full quotes whereas on here, there is denial.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 01:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- If your problem is with People stating that she's being treated at the London Clinic,
here's
The Guardian stating the same thing. And I'm sorry, nobody would agree to removing the hospital name simply because you're 'speculating' that she might be hospitalized somewhere else.
Keivan.f
Talk 00:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Discussion invitation: Brendan Kavanagh
Message added 22:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Archer1234 ( t· c) 22:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Kindly note that there are no Wikipedia policies specifically banning World Journal per
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It might have a pro-Pan Blue bias but that doesn't make it unreliable, specially since they took words from the Chinese group's side. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
120.17.42.191 (
talk) 09:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- The above IP is a vandal, see current discussion [17] Psychologist Guy ( talk) 05:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
With respect to a couple of your recent edits I recommend that you read and digest the following:
-- DeFacto ( talk). 08:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as
vandalism, such as the edit at
Brendan Kavanagh, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can
discourage editors. Please see
what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. —
Archer1234 (
t·
c) 22:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Your recent
Bold
at
Brendan Kavanagh was
Reverted. Per
BRD, it's time to
Discuss this on the talk page. Please don't
edit war by reinstating the edit. Let's see if a
consensus can form to keep it or an alternate version. —
Archer1234 (
t·
c) 22:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --
Dustfreeworld (
talk) 09:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michelle O'Neill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 17:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Changed the link, to specify Irish People. Jaymailsays ( talk) 00:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, the news was only published today, The BBC Press release states he died yesterday https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/steve-wright-mbe Ioangogo ( talk) 18:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics - gender and sexuality, biographies of living or recently deceased people
You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
You have recently made edits related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see
Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 04:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Murder of Brianna Ghey. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
- 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 and 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. Per WP:BRD, MOS:GENDERID, and the long standing consensus on the article talk page, please self-revert this edit. Thank you. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 04:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Also, please do not remove reliable sources and leave sentences unverifiable as you did in this edit. Thanks. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 04:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to
Tucker Carlson, did not appear to be constructive and have been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our
policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about
contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use
your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Elvisisalive95 (
talk) 17:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Also, please do not remove reliable sources and leave sentences unverifiable as you did in this edit. Thank you. Elvisisalive95 ( talk) 17:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Murder of Brianna Ghey shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have made four reverts to the article in the last 15 hours (
[18],
[19],
[20],
[21]). Please self-revert immediately and discuss this on the
article talk page.
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 17:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing to the article
Bob Stewart (politician). However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be
verifiable and attributed to
reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or
mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a
circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at
Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at
Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you.
Sam Kuru
(talk) 14:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, with regards to your edit on Bob Stewart (politician), isn't your reason of "The Parliamentary Constituency will cease to exist, in its current form at the next General Election, which could have influenced Stewart's decision to stand down" just speculation? You could also point out the fact that Stewart is 74 years old and has been an MP for the relatively long time of 14 years. Other MPs who are stepping down don't have similar information in their page, instead it's just on the page of the constituency. Ellwat ( talk) 21:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- His age is in the bio lead! There are many MPs older than him that are not retiring. Beckenham is currently a safe Tory seat but at the next election due to boundary changes, the seat is veritably unsafe from that date onwards. Nothing speculative about it, once you factor in Penge.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 22:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I get that but you're still speculating as to why he stood down. Doesn't this fall under
WP:UNDUE? No need to point this out if it's not been explicitly mentioned in the media.
Ellwat (
talk) 22:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, The boundary changes are fact, it is upto the reader to speculate if they want to. Stewart is innocent of all CPS allegations, it was clear to many, the allegations were false and potentially maliciously motivated and had he not been notable, he would never have been prosecuted. That said, he could have applied to be a candidate for another seat, but because the Whip had been withdrawn, he wasn't eligible to do that. With a very different Constituency make-up next time, he had little choice but to retire.
- If the purpose of the Article is to be encyclopedic, the information ought to be transparently available. Jaymailsays ( talk) 23:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I get that but you're still speculating as to why he stood down. Doesn't this fall under
WP:UNDUE? No need to point this out if it's not been explicitly mentioned in the media.
Ellwat (
talk) 22:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to
the Troubles. This is a standard message to inform you that
the Troubles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally editors are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours in this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see
Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
Kathleen's bike (
talk) 18:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Jaymailsays, I've left you a message at Talk:Where is Kate?. Specifically, I believe you have added a claim into the article which does not come from a sufficiently reliable source for its inclusion to Wikipedia at this time. I realise editors have previously sent you warnings about using sources of unknown or dubious reliability when it comes to editing BLP pages, and think it's important these things are flagged at user talkpages if they are symptomatic of broader editing practices. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk) 01:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
MOS:SEEALSO discourages external links in see also sections, and footnotes on a see also link don't seem to make any sense. If the linked article exists and its topic is notable, what statement is the footnote source meant to be supporting?
If you think the Garrick Club article should include some content about women's clubs in London for, as you say, "balance", put that in the article text. Belbury ( talk) 10:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Jaymailsays. Thank you. Kathleen's bike ( talk) 16:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
[22]
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 20:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Where is Kate? for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Please can you reconsider your decision and unblock my account. Thanks Jaymailsays ( talk) 03:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@ ScottishFinnishRadish: User is requesting unblock, but the unblock request is mangled beyond my ability to repair. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 06:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- However, @
Jaymailsays:, there is a consensus in
the enforcement request to block you. You have not addressed the reasons for the block
-- Deepfriedokra (
talk) 06:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- The reasons for the block are unclear and have not been explained. I brought my concerns to talk page and they were largly ignored. It seems very odd that I can be blocked yet the blocker can not undo the block? I've hardly edited this last week, and the previous edits to Irish history were agreed except by one user who has trolled my edits. Jaymailsays ( talk) 12:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Any unblock request would need to be handled at AE or AN.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 09:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Can you give me a direct link please, instead of using shorthand. An indefinite block is disproportionate, especially when my pleading was ignored.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 17:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- The reasons for your block are outlined at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jaymailsays. You may need to search the archives if the section is archived. As the block notice says, you need to use the unblock template on this talk page, explaining why your block should be reviewed:
- Place the following on your talk page:
{{ unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 17:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)- In that case, 331dot and Wikipedian administrators, you have all failed to act fairly and impartially towards me.
- Can you give me a direct link please, instead of using shorthand. An indefinite block is disproportionate, especially when my pleading was ignored.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 17:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
As a UK resident, I exercise and give notice here, of my right to be forgotten under GDPR.
- All public references to my user name, IP address or other identifying data, should be anonymised by Wikipedia forthwith, or suffer the consequences from the Information Commissioner in due course on the expiry of 14 days from todays date, 11 April 2024.
- I will not entertain any further excuses or mitigation for the way your processing of my appeal has been so poorly and ineptly mishandled.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 17:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- You might be interested in reading
WP:VANISH.
IgnatiusofLondon (he/him •
☎️) 21:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have exercised my right under UK law relating to GDPR to be forgotten permanently by Wikipedia.
- I would also propose that whoever hides behind @
331dot should be removed as an administrator as they clearly do not have the interests of editors in general as their prime ethos. A sockpuppet reported me for an alleged ethical edit and instead of investigating they lazily sided with them. On the expiry of the 14th day, if compliance with my rights to be forgotten are ignored, I shall impose a financial penalty.
Jaymailsays (
talk) 21:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- In this case, you will need to remain blocked for making legal threats. UK law does not apply to the US, not since 1776. 331dot ( talk) 22:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- You might be interested in reading
WP:VANISH.
IgnatiusofLondon (he/him •
☎️) 21:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
( talk) 18:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Jaymailsays ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Your reason This is my talk page and I have fully explained my reasons previously. We're going round in circles. Jaymailsays ( talk) 23:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This isn't how this works. No one may unilaterally remove this block; you must appeal as instructed and write a statement for transfer to a noticeboard. 331dot ( talk) 00:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
- You are welcome to pursue any legal options you wish, but you do not get to continue disrupting the encyclopedia while doing so.-- Ponyo bons mots 22:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Jaymailsays. Thank you for your work on David Sherborne. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Nice work
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
North8000 ( talk) 19:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)