User talk:John timbrell

Hi John

We have taken your comments regarding procedure for dealing with conduct issues on board and have addressed the issue in our latest edit. I hope this will be satisfactory to you?

Kind Regards LeO Admin — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeO Admin (talk • contribs) 16:38, 12 March 2013‎

Contributions to Legal Ombudsman[edit]

To LeO Admin in response Charlesdrakew. I presume that LeO admin and CDW are the same person. Firstly I note on LeO's page that there has been some criticism of your use of the word Admin because they question that you are acting as spokesperson for the Legal Ombudsman. Could you please answer that point. Your latest edit is a great improvement on your previous contributions and I thank you for that. I d have some possibly minor criticisms which may not be finally classed as criticism if an edit by yourself results in clarification. If you are part of the LeO organisation, in might suit you to reply to my name atlive.co.uk (unblock) reason. I'm puzzled. I am blocked for disruptive editing. It begs many questions. 1)Why am I alone classed as distruptive when the organisation described in the title present Hello. Your contributions to Legal Ombudsman appear to be your personal opinions, and not information cited from reliable independent sources. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, including personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic. Please cite a reliable source for any future contributions. Thanks. --Drm310 (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Legal Ombudsman, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Unpublished information, including personal correspondence, is not a reliable source. --Drm310 (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Apart from my opinion that the LeO is another government Quango not fit for purpose, the rest of my comments are quotes from letters I recieved from the LeO. Viz "The LeO cannot comment on the competence of a solicitor" AND " THe LeO cannot comment on the alleged negligence of a solicitor". My comment re the non ability of the Solicitors organisation to adjudicate on complaints are a fact of UK legislation which is quoted in Wikipedia. Perhaps Drm310 would assist me in the correct way to include citations- I tried but was unsuccessful.

You might also ask the LeO a direct question. 'Can the LeO comment on the competence of a solicitor where a solicitor is employed as an expert on the law but fails to take changes of the law into account when advising a client' AND 'Can the LeO comment on the negligence of a solicitor'. Both of these items the average person would be included in the word 'service'. The fact that the LeO does not comment on my assertions should indicate to you that they have something to hide.(user John Timbrell) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John timbrell (talk • contribs) 20:10, 13 March 2013‎

If you could point out the article(s) which demonstrate your first point, as long as they are reliably sourced, I'd be willing to check them out.

I already inserted a link to citing sources, but please tell me if this isn't sufficient or you still have difficulty writing proper citations. Help:Footnotes is another place to find assistance.

As for your apparent dispute with the organization itself, Wikipedia is not a battleground and is not the appropriate venue for this type of debate. If issues about the organization's competence are raised through non-trivial coverage by reliable sources, then it could be considered appropriate material to add - but not before. --Drm310 (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The clarifacation of what the LeO can do re Competence and Negligence comes from letter from the LeO quoting their policy. The ref. to the Law Society's ability to investigate complaints entered by LeO admin is contrary to UK law. If you remove my correction morally you should remove their incorrect assertion. This is not a personal attack on the LeO. It is placed to inform the public of the actual work that the Leo can do. If you read my edits previously they were better explained. I would prefer that I could repeat them but the LeO deletes them. Whilst I accept your observations to some degree, your criticism should be directed at the LeO who persists in hiding their true abilities behind the word Service when they are severely restricted as to what services they can judge.My (inefficient) edits would not be necessary if the LeO provided the correct information in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John timbrell (talk • contribs) 09:37, 15 March 2013‎

March 2013[edit]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Legal Ombudsman. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Charles (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jackson Peebles (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Dear. Whilst I take on board your criticism you obviously have not read the history. otherwise you might have tempered your criticism with advice. If you take the trouble to read what has happened you will see that the Legal Ombudsman has in fact stated what I wrote in my edits, albeit using better phrasing than I used. You would then note that I took no further part in editing the site. I have had three similar criticisms from Wiki Editors who only seem to take pleasure in pointing out other people's errors rather than seeking to establish the truth and accuracy of the subject.From my , I accept limited perspective, it seems that the Wiki editors are the type of people who seek to find fault in others to the detriment of what Wikipedia seeks to achieve. Reading through the previous histories of Wiki editors it seems that my experience is not unusual. If you are truly into the priciples behind Wikipedia you might pass my comment togeher with your own observations to whoever has the power to affect overall policy of Wikipedia. A person who would be intimidated by your threats might not visit the site again even though their contribution might be of value and interest to the cyber community. Sincerely JohnTimbrell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John timbrell (talk • contribs) 18:14, 17 March 2013‎

Signature[edit]

Hello.

When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disrupting Wikipedia to push a point of view about another organization. Wikipedia does not exist as a criticism website for your own personal issues with Legal Ombudsman. We cover published facts in reliable sources. You may not use Wikipedia to retaliate over your dispute, as you did at Legal Ombudsman. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. v/r - T P 19:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

John timbrell (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm puzzled. I have been accused of disruptive editing. This begs many questions. 1)The LeO organisation has followed my edits by editing themselves to include the points that I raised so that my so called disruptive editing was to the benefit of all who read the LeO's latest edit. 2) I ceased editing voluntarily when the LeO presented the correct information. Two days passed and yet I recieved warnings and finally blocking after I had ceased editing. Why? It appears to me that my answers/criticisms/explanations to those editors who warned me upset them to result in my eventual blocking. It should be noted that in response to each editor I asked questions that were not answered. 3) If my edits were disruptive by stating facts which are the law in the UK and the LeO's early edits were contrary to UK law why were they not blocked? The UK law surely is written and available for everyone so my edits did have verifiable authority. The criticism I received were from (I believe)editors in the USA. Had each read the history of the subject they would have realised that something was amiss when a government quango (correct technical term) was disemminating information that was not correct and hiding facts that were embarrassing to them . The Wiki editors assisted them in this which to my mind goes against the whole ethos of Wikipedia. From my , I accept limited experience , it seems that Wikipedia attracts editors who seek to attract attention and therefore seek advancment in the Wiki organisation. I have been unpleasantly surprised by this and my opinion of Wikipedia as a source of truthful and accurate information has diminished. I state this after reading the talk pages of the editors who criticised me and there found other users of Wikipedia had be criticised for not substantiating their facts when the facts were in published form for all to see. Using Wikipedia is difficult for people like me, who may be expert in one field but pretty useless when using a computer. I fell foul of Wiki's rules by not signing with ---- whereas I did sign with my correct name. The whole system seems to the uninitiated to be full of traps. This may be a joke to some but it interferes with the ethos of Wikipedia, in that it prevents people with a certain knowledge from imparting that knowledge. Amen---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by John timbrell (talk • contribs) 08:54, 19 March 2013‎

Decline reason:

This is simply not encyclopedia article writing. You are adding your own opinions, written in the first person, and not cited in any way. Wikipedia writing should be written as good research writing; you don't have to be 'initiated' specifically into Wikipedia to be able to do that, but you do need good research writing skills in order to be able to make useful edits. Your unblock request doesn't discuss what you have learned about good research writing, or how you have improved those skills. Without knowing what your future edits would be, I don't have a good way to evaluate whether this account should be unblocked or not. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello Fisher Queen. I'm still puzzled unless my later observations have some credibility.

Three people including you have criticised my editing by quoting similar opinions as yours. Each of you do not discuss or examine that I achieved what I set out to do,which was to get the government to correctly describe their abilities and more importantly what they cannot do. I quoted letters from the organisation which confirmed my earlier edits and their later corrections. I have edited other Wikipedia topics which what amount to my opinions based on accummulated knowledge in botany. There has been no problem there , probably because what I wrote was correct and not challenged. So quoting an opinion based on knowledge is already acceptable on Wikipedia allthough , I accept that citing references helps, nothing is absolutely certain as the various opposing opinions in a news discussion will show. My suppositions as to why I have been criticised or blocked with some animosity toward me are as followes 1) My points justifying my edits have not been discussed despite my pointing out that my opinion was UK law. I note that most criticism comes from the USA. Do you always agree with what government organisations disseminate in the media including Wikipedia? 2) You guidlines state that your corrections should not be done to punish offenders. Why then did not the editors communicate with me to discuss my assertions and perhaps suggest formulating them in a better way. 3) Why is my block indefinate? Seems a bit heavy handed to me, possibly because I criticised the editors as I am doing now and they wished to show their authority. It seems that a certain type of person is attracted to the post of ediitor who is looking for offenders against the rules instead of seeking to extract accurate information from people who have a certain knowledge but who might have not written it in the correct way. I have previously asked for my comments to be passed to someone who oversees Wikipedia's policies. This has been ignored. Therefore if I do not receive a sensible reply to my comments today I will join the many who decry Wikipedia. They decry Wikipedia often without good reason. I will quote my reasons as above. I think I deserve an apology from the three arrogant editors who have not taken the trouble to read the history before condemming me. I doubt whether any of you are man enough to answer so goodbye Wikipedia.