User talk:TayLass

Welcome![edit]

Hello, TayLass, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ruby Murray 11:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013[edit]

Hello, TayLass. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Brian Souter, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Ruby Murray 12:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Hello Ruby,

I'd remind you to consider the exact same, I have looked at your past edits and everything you have ever contributed, changed or edit on the Brian Souter page has been for negative effect. Everything I have added has only been factual information about a mans life, in keeping with Wiki's Living Person rules. I have not removed any of the negative sections, only those that have no weight, references or relevance. I could very well accuse you of having a conflict of interest too.

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Brian Souter may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

bus and coach operator in the USA and Canada.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coach_USA#History}</ref> After the purchase it became clear that the company suffered from a lot of issues<ref>http://

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby[edit]

I am worried that the page is breaching the Living Persons Biography Page rules as the majority of the page is negative. The controversies section takes up almost half the content of the page, this is not balanced and should be, as stated in the rules relating to a living persons page. It appears you are the only one that is editing this page other than myself, and as mentioned every edit you make paints Brian Souter in a negative light. The opening paragraph contains negative content about the Section 28 campaign, knighthood and brings in his religious beliefs; all areas that ALREADY get mentioned in great detail (every time I add details you reduce them down, and claim you are keeping tone neutral.) in the controversy section. These s should be removed, as repeating content and the same arguments/opinions is not keeping the page neutral or unbiased.

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot[edit]

Hi TayLass! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Brian Souter, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Ruby Murray 11:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sections[edit]

The things that are notable about a person should be mentioned in the lead section. For more information on what should go into a lead section, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Ruby Murray 11:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I will expand the lead section to detail more of his positive achievements as its very clear your motives are to keep this page heavily weighed in negative, which against Wikipedia guidelines.

Edit warring[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Brian Souter. 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. Ruby Murray 11:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration[edit]

Ruby, we need to collaborate in a manner which serves both our goals. I have stated that I am working on this page to keep it current and include more accurate detail than it before I started editing. Can I ask what you interest is in this page, I understand you are not a fan of Brain Souter as it is very evident in every edit you make. But this is not a productive way to progress, and is also against Wikipedia rules and guidelines.

You can't have a controversies section and merge the controversies into the main body of the page, either have a controversies section or merge all sections of it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TayLass (talk • contribs)

I've split the controversies section up, moving the referenced information into more appropriate sections. It's incorrect to say that every edit I've made "paints Brian Souter in a negative light". Some of my edits have removed unsourced negative assertions about him, and corrected erroneous claims about him. It's appropriate to mention his opposition to Section 28 in the intro: it was widely reported in the press, and as I've mentioned above, the manual of style explains why notable things should be mentioned in the intro, and detailed further down in the article. On my talk page at User talk:Ruby Murray#Hello from TayLass you wrote: " I am the daughter of a friend of the Souter family, I help with Mr Souter's website and have been asked update the Wikipedia Bio Page to more accurately reflect his life." Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and please stop trying to use Wikipedia to burnish his public image: edits like this and this and this are unacceptable in an encyclopedia. Ruby Murray 11:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your edits/merging of controversy sections. I am new to wikipedia and thank you for your help in educating me, my only goal is to ensure that the page is current and is purely focused on the negative. Please can we work to find a balance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TayLass (talk • contribs)

Which parts of the article do you think are now excessively negative? Ruby Murray 12:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with its current layout, I think it a lot more accurate than when I started editing the page, so I thank You.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TayLass (talk • contribs)

You're welcome. I don't dislike Mr. Souter - I know very little about him. I only noticed the article when references started breaking following deletions, and my goal is only for the article to conform to Wikipedia policies. Ruby Murray 12:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]