User talk:21stCenturyBuoy

We know what Galloway said.It was in English.And there are thousands of POVs on this one sentence. A Respect Candidates would not be at the top of the list.

Comment

On talk pages, "do not strikeout the comments of other editors without their permission", as you did at Talk:George Galloway. This is unacceptable behaviour.

RolandR 19:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to George Galloway. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have made an edit to George Galloway that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy. RolandR (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galloway and forgeries.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070723/debtext/70723-0014.htm

Read the debate. And the evidence http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmstnprv/909/7061902.htm

Gallowayknew the documents to be genuine when the Socialist Worker printed. He didn't lie to anyone. But he did know. If you remove the Parliamtary evidence in favour of a socialist worker journalists POV I shall apply to have you blocked for slandering Oliver Thorne.

You have made a further edit to George Galloway that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy.

Please note, Oliver Thorne did not even consider the claim made by George Galloway and Socialist Worker: that Galloway's signature was later fraudulently added to an otherwisw genuine document. RolandR (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am stating the opinion and evidence of a forensic evidence expert employed by Galloways lawyers and Parliament. His opinion is much more valid than two junior journalists on the SW. Galloway has never claimed anything of the sort by the way. He has always refused all opportunities to view the documants.

I am reinstating Thornes evidence.

Hi 21stCenturyBuoy, The material you are trying to insert is original evidence, a primary source. With articles about living people controversial material from such sources are not allowed. Please see [| reliable sources in BLP]. You need to find a book or a newspaper article that makes the same claim that you are, because otherwise you are doing Original research and your edits will correctly continue to be deleted). Reading the two policy pages here will help you understand WP rules better and should help things to go a bit more smoothly. Let me know if I can help you in any way. Slp1 (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Hansard regarded as a publication?21stCenturyBuoy (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a third party publication, (as required) no. It is a record of speeches, statements etc and is a primary source. You need to take your edit out, and it would be great if you would do it, not leave it to somebody else. --Slp1 (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you have added now is clearly an opinion column, and as such needs to be dealt with very careful because it is Blair's opinion/view, rather something the DT journalists have investigated and supported. The only way you can include this is if you say, "However, in xxxx, David Blair claimed that ......." and then the discussion becomes, how notable is David Blair's opinion. You should also take a look at WP:consensus: at the moment the editors on that page seem to disagree with your edits, so discussion what you want and why will be your best policy. Slp1 (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on George Galloway. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stop adding defamatory material to this articleRolandR (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's just put it back without even an 'edit note' this time. It's worse than it was, as it just wastes Kb with an extra meaningless link. To be honest I'm not sure of the procedures. I'll see if someone else removes it - but I'm not happy with it staying up. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Talk:George Galloway. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--John (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at George Galloway. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Stifle (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also familarize yourself with the provisions of WP:BLP. Failing to comply with this page will result in longer blocks. Stifle (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Galloway

Pleasse check that my addition is proper. I have quoted the most recent biography of Galloway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 21stCenturyBuoy (talk • contribs) 09:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry,I forgot to sign. 21stCenturyBuoy (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything wrong with it but that is not to say that another user might. Please consider using the {{cite book}} template to properly cite a book. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert on the man, but this appears a BLP compliant edit. Well done! Your addition could do with a good copyedit, though (there are lots of missing spaces and problems with punctuation), and as Stifle says, the templates on this page WP:CITET will mean that the book reference will appear correctly in the reference section. Thanks for asking me to check out your edit. --Slp1 (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I just realized that Oliver Thorne's testimony was already in the article: see [1]. I am not clear why it needs to be mentioned twice. --Slp1 (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected that.The documents were not an issue at the trial. Matt Lewis has now started to vandalise21stCenturyBuoy (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using the word "vandalism" is a very bad idea. He has discussed what and why he was going to do on the GG talkpage. I think both of you should stop editing the article and discuss the issue on the talkpage and come to some agreement about what should be included.--Slp1 (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, if you repeat edits like this you will be blocked. Comment on edits, not the supposed motives of the editor please. See WP:NPA. --John (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

welcome

Through all this, you have not been formally introduced to Wikipedia. You may have learned the hard way that adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy.

Welcome!

Hello, 21stCenturyBuoy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 13:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Galloway staistics

What are you talking about? I have deleted nothing (so far . . .) RolandR (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Roland,my mistake. Do you have any idea why the page claims there was a Parliamentary Inquiry into Asian Voice?21stCenturyBuoy (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]