User talk:Tony Bennett

Welcome!

Hello, Tony Bennett, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name 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! VanTucky 20:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest editing[edit]

Mr. Bennett,

It appears your recent edits to Anthony Bennett (English politician) have been against our conflict of interest editing policy. Please stop, and allow a more neutral editor to step up and edit. You can read about our manual of style here. Somitho 10:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have further concerns relating to the content of articles you are featured as a subject of, please take up the matter on the talk page. --Agamemnon2 10:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe (if I understand the policy correctly) that your edits to Gay Police Association are also against the conflict of interest policy due to this press release. Archer7 12:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding sources[edit]

Further to your recent edits, adding such as [Source: Communication from Greater Manchester Chief Constable to Tony Bennett] and [Source: Harry Cichy] are not ways of adding third party reliable sources on wikipedia. Please see WP:RS and WP:VER. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: Noted. The previous entry on Wikipedia on my arrest in Oldham was made by Harry Cichy, without my knowledge or consent, but he did not acknowledge himself to be the source, therefore I added it. As he had successfully entered on Wikipedia news of my arrest, which had been up there for well over a year, I thought it was only reasonable to report the fact that GM Police had decided there was insufficient evidence of an offence having been committed. I am sorry if, in doing these two things, I inadvertently broke any Wikipedia rules or conventions - T.B.

Further to the above, and your edits this evening, I have worked hard on the CountyWatch article, especially to get sources correctly added. You have again used {Source: CountyWatch]. That is not a source. Please have a look at how I have added sources. The source needs to be verifiable not just source: CountyWatch. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I have just noticed that the Bedfordshire section which you have just added contains no third party vertifiable source at all. You need to provide a third party source for anything you add, otherwise it is likely to be removed. If there are any BBC online article, local newspaper articles that cover this latest addition about Bedfordshire then if you give me the website address I will add them in in the correct format. I should also point out that the Direct Action section is now in alphabetical order and so I have moved the section to the correct placing. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for placing the material in alphabetical order. It was written in advance of what I anticipate will be an article in a Bedfordshire newspaper over the next few days. As soon as it is published, I will try and include the reference in the proper format. If there is no publication, shall I voluntarily delete that (Bedfordshire) entry? - T.B.

If there is an article in the newspaper online, then by all means just leave me a message on my talk page and I will add it for you in the correct format, and insert information from the article. There is no need to delete any information just yet as I have also placed a tag on the section. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tangerines, thank you for your note. There were six statements in the material on Bedfordshire that you identified as requiring either a citation or verification. I have supplied sources tonight for five of them, including a newspaper article about the controversial erection of these signs last November. The Luton on Sunday newspaper has both interviewed and photographed members of CountyWatch in relation to this week's action and I expect a signifcant article to be published by them on Sunday. I will add the reference if such an article does appear. - T.B.

I once again offer to add these sources for you as they are still being added incorrectly. Your edits also need to be NPOV. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I must commend you Mr Bennett on finding time to contribute to the Wikipedia project, please be mindful that Wikipedia is NOT a political soapbox. You're not in breach of WP:SOAP, but I wanted to raise awareness that it is a policy of Wikipedia to remain encyclopedic, not politicised. Whilst I think you're redressing the balance on POV, I wouldn't want articles you take an interest in to breach WP:NPOV or WP:SOAP by becoming a list of Bennett-centric source material. Jza84 21:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on talk pages[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as in CountyWatch, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Also you did the same in Historic counties of England, please just add four tildes instead of just adding your name and telephone number. Please also note that I have removed both instances of you inserting your telephone number as it is something discouraged on wikipedia.

I really would strongly recommend that you take the time to read the numerous wikipedia articles on how to use this site, and learn to use wikipedia in the correct manner, before you edit again. Please take this in the good spirit it is intended, but it is frustrating when most registered users take the time to learn how to use wikipedia, yet when you edits articles, like you do, it is creating more work for other users to amend what you have edited into a NPOV piece, with correct refs etc etc. It is not that difficult to learn, and it would be the best use of your time rather than creating work by your edits for other users. Thank you.

Also, having just seen your latest edits on the CountyWatch article, if you do not take the time to learn how to edit articles then you are likely to start receiving warnings about your editing and have them removed, as those you made this morning have, to put it bluntly, made a right mess of the section on Bedfordshire. I have therefore removed all the edits made by you today and reverted that section back to as it was before; while I try (yet again) to re-insert your edits into wikipedia standard edits. Any further edits you make of that standard will in future be removed. Please stop editing and take the time to learn how to edit correctly on wikipedia. Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC) ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing here to outline that I wholly support User:Tangerines on this; I welcome any contributor to Wikipedia, but you must give respect to the community and webspace provided for by the Wikipedia Foundation, and I think Tangerines has been patient with you during your brief time on Wikipedia.

Whilst you're demonstrating some technical descrepencies as an editor, what concerns me most is your "point of view editting", and discussions about radically changing articles towards what will be considered, a sole or minority perspective. As has been stated earlier, Wikipedia is NOT a place to assert political ideas, force or distort personal points of view, write unverifiable claims or promote original research. In fact, it is discouraged by Wikipedia and it's members to write from their own perspective.

As Harold Geneen once stated:

"The reliability of the person giving you the facts is as important as the facts themselves. Keep in mind that facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions."

The county debate is one which on Wikipedia has been solved time, and time again, through primary and secondry source material, scholarly debate and source material, i.e. We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist, with the former boundaries. What I would discourage you to do is attempt to (mis)use the charity of Wikipedia's webspace and try to assert some of your group's policital perspective upon articles which are meant to be written collaboratively, in an neutral and encyclopedic manner, inline with mainstream, consensual and verifiable primary and secondary research.

Writing about yourself to fix some falsifications is one thing, but to encroach upon other strong articles with a heavily one-sided standpoint as a politician and direct activist isn't appropriate, and I should add here that all contributions, whether on articles or talk pages, are traceable (and revertable) and avaliable to veiw within the public domain (including exactly how much time you're spending on Wikipedia and when).

I hope that acts more as a guide rather than a warning, as that is my intent to best bring you into the editting community as openly as possible. Please now take a little time to review the Five pillars of Wikipedia which going forwards, might help here. Jza84 20:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responses from Tony Bennett[edit]

Please see the entry below which I posted on the CountyWatch page a few days ago. It preceded the above two contribitions. At the end of my comments on the CountyWatch discussion pages, it says I didn't identify myself. I not only did, giving my name, as I always do - I use no 'code name' on Wikipedia - but also supplyig a 'phone number. I'll try adding four tildes this time. By the way, ITV Anglia ran a feature on CountyWatch today including footage filmed by ITV of a 'Welcome to Bedfordshire' sign being re-erected by us on the Hertfordshire/ Bedfordshire border, where one had been taken down by the authorities 10 years ago when Luton became a unitary authority. In line with guidance received (and thanks by the way, I appreciate the constructive tone of comments made), I shall post nothing about it on the main page. Nevertheless I mention it as an indication of how the press has very proactively (and on the whole favourably) reported our campaign and continues to do so. There are many othet media references about CountyWatch which have not added to the list on the main page.

O.K., now to reproduce what I wrote on the CountyWatch discussion page:

Response by Tony Bennett of CountyWatch

Herewith some brief responses.

This week, one contributor on another page noted that this article was close to violating guidelines on 'Wikipedia Soap' articles, and pointed out that Wikipedia was not there to represent particular political points of view. The writer also claimed that the article on CountyWatch had become too 'Bennettcentric'. Unfortunately I don't know how to reach that page (though I've tried), so am answering the writer here.

I accept both observations, and would like to say that I think Wikipedia's editorial policy on this article has been very fair to date.

One reason why I hope the article will stay more or less unaffected is that CountyWatch (we spell it that way, but it doesn't really matter) receives great public support wherever our actions take place (plus of course some opposition from County Hall bureaucrats).

To give just one example, our most spectacular action to date was carried out in Lancashire over three days in November 2005 when 40 'Welcome to Lancashire' signs, mostly around 20 to 30 miles north of the traditional Lancashire border with Cheshire - namely, the river Mersey - were removed, and deposited for collection by Lancashire County Council on the historic border with Yorkshire near Nelson. Our action was filmed by BBC North West on two separate days - the third time a regional BBC programme has filmed us in action (other occasions were our actions in Lincolnshire and County Durham).

BBC North West then invited its viewers to submit by 'phone or e-mail their views on whether this action was 'unjustified vandalism' or 'justified action in support of Lancashire's historic boundaries'. Peter Marshall, the journalist and presenter, together with the editor of BBC North West, both told us afterwards that there had never ever in the history of BBC TV North West been a greater resposnse to any other single news item and viewers' poll - and in terms of the weight of opinion it was, to quote the BBC verbatim, 'overwhelmingly' in support of our action.

I will try not to post any more on this article unless there are press reports which are significant, which I will add as references. However, I would say that with further break-up of our historic county administration in the pipeline - such as in Bedfordshire, Cheshire, Shropshire etc., there is likely to be continued public interest in and discussion of this subject.

We have, along with other eurosceptic organisations, continually warned that the 'game plan' was to abolish county adminisrtation altogether, creating regional government on the basis of the nine new English regions, with a series of 'unitary authorities' below them - with both Counties and District Councils abolished. The government's announcement in July this year on the creation of a whole swath of new unitary authorities tends to prove our assessment correct.

Quite apart from that, most of our county boundaries have had virtually unchanged boundaries for over 1,000 years - until the Edward Heath re-organisaion of local government in 1974. They are, say CountyWatch, part of the historic fabric of the country and give us a sense of place and sometimes of identity; we think these boundaries, for which many people have a continuing affection, should be preserved, not destroyed.

Finally, I am currently preparing an article for Wikipedia on the historic counties of England, which will be entirely non-political and will simply give factual information about them - see the notice I have just posted earlier today under the 'Discussion on the Historic Counties of England' page. In my article, I hope to address these stated concerns about the existing article on historic Counties:

1) List/table showing which went on to become administrative and non-metropolitan counties and which did not (and how the ancient subdivisions were used as the basis for some admin counties) 2) Expanded references 3) Section detailing role of the ancient counties - still needs work.

Finally, thanks to those who have contributed above to explain that they too regard the issue of maintaining and promoting our historic county boundaries as an important one.

If anyone want to see a draft of the proposed article on historic counties they are welcome to 'phone me and I'll e-mail it.

[—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony Bennett (talk • contribs) 10:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)-]

Tony Bennett Tony Bennett 12:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint from Tony Bennett[edit]

Over the last few days, the following have taken place:

1) Two items I wrote for this discussion page have been deleted without explanation. They were constructive comments of mine and explained the reasons for some of my contributions to the page about me and the CountyWatch page. Who removed this and why?

2) False statements have been made about me in the newly edited so-called 'neutral article'. Notably, the claim that I have ever said Mohammed was a paedophile. *I have not*. A press article may have said so, but that was the subject of a successful complaint I made to the Press Complaints Commission. The fact that Maidstone Crown Court gave me an Absolute Discharge in respect of an allegation of criminal damage against me has been deleted from the article and I require it to be restored. The way it is put in the article in legally inaccurate. Also, it was not a single judge who made the decision on appeal, it was a panel of *three Magistrates sitting as a Crown Court plus Judge Keith Simpson*. I accept the reference to Ian Anderson being a co-founder of People's Campaign to Keep the Pound - for what it is worth - but would ask that the additional reference to it being a 'white nationalist' party is deleted. The inclusion of that seems designed more to smear than to be be informative. It is also inconsistent with what Wikipedia itself says about 'white nationalism' on that page.

3) You have now denied me the ability to correct misleading statements in an article about me. I have tried to edit the article i.e. correct the inaccurate information since it was re-written, but cannot do so as it apoears I am blocked.

4) You claimed I had posted information anonymously when in fact I gave my name underneath my contribution. One of your editors took it upon him/herself to delete my name from the message. That is not fair play and gives viewers of this page a misleading impression about me. I use my name openly on Wikipedia - unlike those who hide it by using a code name; and, by the way, I don't think any of my contributions anywhere on Wikipedia have ever been challenged for accuracy.

I will not tolerate inaccurate information about me and moreover inaccurate information which could pose personal dangers for me.

I expect an immediate response from whoever is responsible for the above.

I would also ask you to note that Wikipedia allowed a malicious entry about me to appear on the page about me on 8 July albeit that it was corrected i.e. deleted by someone from Wikipedia the following day, all without my knowledge. I would like to add as matter of fact that Essex Police are currently investigating the malicious message on Wikipedia, which was subsequently downloaded by the perpetrator and used in a libellous fashion against me. It was downloaded after it was posted up and then printed off and sent to various contact of mine. Not very nice - and Wikipedia must take its share of the blame for that episode.

Wikipedia by allowing a 'neutral' editor to post further false information about me - and without even permitting me to correct it - is running itself at risk of legal consequences.

Please do not delete this message like you did the other one. And please be fair enough to restore the message I wrote for this page a few days ago, so that everyone can see it and judge for themselves.

It is now up to you.

Tony BennettTony Bennett 21:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. try checking the history of this article and reading my message above yours. It was me who tried cleaning this article up and making it more balanced, basing it on perfectly valid sources such as this - [1] and this [2] the second BBC story says, "The judge upheld Mr Bennett's conviction for criminal damage, but he discharged the sentence, which had been 50 hours of community service." and that is what I based my edit on. I have also checked other sources including newspaper articles, all of which state exactly the same. That is why the edit was made, and for that reason only. The previous Guardian article is also what I based my other edit on which you take such offence at. It is not my fault that the article is in the public domain, I used it perfectly within the guidelines of wikipedia to edit this article. The first time I had even heard your name was when I came across the CountyWatch article, and from there came to this article. When I saw that it was written in a style contradictory to wikipedia guidelines, I decided to try and clean it up basing that on verifiable, reliable sources. That is something that alot of users on here do all the time, they browse wikipedia, find articles that need cleaning up and do so. That does not mean they (and I in this instance) are doing it out of malice or with any intention of harm. I have also previously tried giving you advice about using wikipedia. It seems that advice was pointless.You have to realise that people can and will edit articles on wikipedia. And that some editors, such as I did, will edit articles simply to clean them up with no malice, no POV, and certainly no opinion on you one way or the other. Two final things -

1. Please do not make threats or personal attacks. 2. If you would take the time to read my message, the one immediately above yours, you will also clearly see this at the end:

"If as I no doubt have, made any mistakes, please correct them" So, rather than making complaints and false accusations, perhaps you could just point out the mistakes and provide third party, verifiable, reliable sources.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition I would strongly suggest you read this - Wikipedia:No legal threats. and WP:NPA. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have finally understood what you meant by this, "4) You claimed I had posted information anonymously when in fact I gave my name underneath my contribution. One of your editors took it upon him/herself to delete my name from the message. That is not fair play and gives viewers of this page a misleading impression about me. I use my name openly on Wikipedia - unlike those who hide it by using a code name; and, by the way, I don't think any of my contributions anywhere on Wikipedia have ever been challenged for accuracy."

Yet again, I will try to explain, and with respect I think I have been very patient with you in trying to help you edit on wikipedia. I have also spent a lot of time adding information into the CountyWatch article to ensure that the article both remains on wikipedia but also to ensure that all the content you added was sourced. However, I shall yet again try. On 12 August 2007 you added (if I recall correctly) two messages on article talk pages, in both of them you did not sign your messages as you appear totally misunderstand how wikipedia works. Merely adding your name at the end of a message is not how to add a signature at the end of a message on a talk page. In addition you added your own personal telephone number at the end of those messages. Given that it is something that wikipedia guidelines strongly discourage (adding personal details on here) I removed your telephone number. I also added the unsigned tag as no matter what you might think, by not signing the messages in the correct wikipedia format, they were unsigned. I also left a message on your own talk page, the standard (unsigned coment) message about how to sign messages on wikipedia. So to answer your outburst number 4 -

1. "You claimed I had posted information anonymously when in fact I gave my name underneath my contribution."

Try checking fully and you will see that it was merely pointed out to you that you had not signed with four tildes, the standard format for signing messages on wikipedia. Adding your name underneath does not make it a signature.

2. "One of your editors took it upon him/herself to delete my name from the message. That is not fair play and gives viewers of this page a misleading impression about me."

Again try checking. Your name was not removed at all. What actually happened was that your name and telephone number were removed and the unsigned comment tag was added, which also includes your name. So please do not lie and say that it gives other users (or as you call them viewers) a misleading impression about you when it did not. It merly pointed out that you, Tony Bennett, added a message on a talk page that was unsigned. Which it was. In addition I also left you a detailed message on your own talk page explaining in full what I had done, why I did it and how you should add signatures. Something you clearly read as since then you have signed with four tidles. So please, stop with the uncalled for and incorrect accusations.

3. "I use my name openly on Wikipedia - unlike those who hide it by using a code name;"

I am very happy for you. However, as I am sure you are also perfectly aware, everyone has the right to privacy. What you claim to be "hiding behind a code name" is adding a username.

As you will see, and despite the provocation and your unfounded accusations which you appear to base upon a complete and utter lack of knowledge of how to use wikipedia, I have tried to refrain from launching any personal attacks. Before you in future start composing messages about taking legal action and making accusations about other users, I really would very strongly reccomend that you actually take the time to read wikipedia guidelines, and actually check your facts before incorrectly accusing me of deleting stuff. And my apologies to other users for using bold text as I really felt no other option was possible. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to everyone else for this but I just though of something else, as I usually do.... When I worked on this article the other day, I spent time sourcing it, and added as I said before with no opinion on Tony Bennett whatsoever (mostly because I hadn't the slightest idea of who he even was, never having heard of him before reading about him on wikipedia) and it is perfectly possible to check in the edit history my numerous edits, all of which were NPOV (or at least as NPOV as possible). Whilst some of it might seem unpaltable to the subject of this article himself, it is all information taken from the public domain. If any of that is incorrect then it needs to have another reliable and verifiable source to prove it to be so and not just words on this talk page. In addition (and hopefully finally) much of what I added most definitely did NOT (and yes I mean to shout in bold so apologies) put Tony Bennett across in a bad light, in fact quite the opposite. Something which Tony Bennett himself in his message above simply chooses to ignore. The vast majority of my edits that day spent on this article were probably more favourable to him. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have now checked about this- "I would also ask you to note that Wikipedia allowed a malicious entry about me to appear on the page about me on 8 July albeit that it was corrected i.e. deleted by someone from Wikipedia the following day, all without my knowledge." Again, you show your complete igorance of how wikipedia works. I have said it to you mumerous times now, but you should take the time to actually read about wikipedia, read how it works, read how to edit, read how to add signatures, read how to add sources. However,

1. "I would also ask you to note that Wikipedia allowed a malicious entry about me to appear on the page about me on 8 July"

The edit seems to have been added at 18:25 (UTC) on 8 July and it was removed at 03:32 (UTC) on 9 July. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "wikipedia allowing a malicious entry to appear". As soon as a registered user saw the clear vandalism they removed the edit. That is how wikipedia works. Check and read the guidelines.

2. "albeit that it was corrected i.e. deleted by someone from Wikipedia the following day, all without my knowledge"

Hardly "the following day" was it? Technically maybe, but in reality it was removed nine hours later, which hardly qualifies as "the next day". Users/editors on wikipedia are all just people in every day life who also happen to edit on wikipedia in their spare time. They cannot, nor should be expected to, notify someone who has an article about themselves on wikipedia that their article has been vandalised. The same happens to articles on for instance, Tony Blair, I doubt he gets told every time. The vandalism was removed as soon as someone saw it. Adding an article to a users Watchlist is how to counter vandalism. Seriously you should read wikipedia guidelines as I have tried asking you numerous times now, and spend some time reading the guidelines and learn how wikipedia works and perhaps more importantly given your false accusations aginst me, how to use wikipedia, especially before you throw out unfounded accusations again.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two more things:

1. " I don't think any of my contributions anywhere on Wikipedia have ever been challenged for accuracy." Incorrect, they have.

2. "I will not tolerate inaccurate information about me". I am trying really hard to refrain from making any sort of comment about you but when you come out with things like that and some of your other comments, you make it very difficult not to. However I will refrain from doing so. You are though edging toward breaking wikipedia rules with some of your comments, and I should imagine have already broken some rules. You are though not talking to a child and I find your tone patronising, arrogant, belittling and rude. If you continue in the same manner as you did in the message above I will take it is a personal attack, especially when I have worked very hard to ensure this article is as fair as possible (and especially when I also made a point of saying if there were any mistakes than they should be corrected and yet instead you launch into an attack on my edits), and especially when I have tried really hard previously to help you on wikipedia, and to ensure that you are actually dealt with on here fairly. And equally especially when you make accusations (such as your name being deleted accusation, when I fully explained both my actions and the perfectly valid reasons for doing so to you at the time) without checking facts and seemingly without even trying, despite my numerous previous suggestions, to learn how wikipedia works and how to use wikipedia.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 06:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Tony Bennett

To Tangerines and colleagues in Wikipedia.

This will be long.

Let me begin, however, by thanking you for your lengthy response and by saying that I acknowledge that in editing the article you were doing your best as you saw it and on the whole have done a fair job. I do, however, still have some criticisms and observations and these I will deal with below.

Given the appearance of malicious and inaccurate material about me, currently the subject of a Police enquiry, on Wikipedia within the last few weeks, it is not perhaps surprising if I insist on accuracy and I continue to insist that untruthful or unfair statements be removed or altered. I hope the following will enable you and colleagues to resolve matters without further exchanges between us.

A couple of preliminary points. I have a reasonable knowledge by now of Wikipedia editing policy and I fully understand that you must use accurate and appropriate sources where you can. Not every newspaper story is accurate! There is a particular difficulty about the January 2005 articles in the Guardian and Observer since you will not find the corrections to their mistakes on the Net. I have helped you with this below.

What I don’t quite follow is why you could not have, for example, e-mailed me with your proposed corrections and invited my observations before posting. It would have saved an awful lot of trouble on both sides. Also, you have not explained why I am blocked from editing the page. Nor for how long I am blocked.

You claim that I made a threat re legal action. Look carefully again at my actual words: “Wikipedia, by allowing a 'neutral' editor to post further false information about me - and without even permitting me to correct it - is running itself at risk of legal consequences”.

That is a simple statement of the law, is it not? There is no threat of legal action. Wikipedia is not exempt from the libel laws, is it? I made the comment to reinforce the point that like everyone else, Wikipedia is not allowed to post false information about people, even if it has done so inadvertently. Would you concede that?

I write well over 100 articles a year for Christian newspapers. I have to check my facts carefully, especially when writing about a living individual. Often I will check with a individual if I am writing a controversial article about them. Does not Wikipedia do the same?

RESPONSE

I begin with a letter sent to the Observer on 7 February 2005:

QUOTE:

Dear Mr Alton,

My letter to you and 'Letter to the Editor' for publication are pasted below. I await your early response [c.c.'d Press Complaints Commission, attn. Stephen Abell].

From: Tony Bennett, 66 Chippingfield, HARLOW, Essex, CM17 0DJ

Monday 7 February

Mr Roger Alton Editor Observer Newspaper 3-7 Herval Hill LONDONÂ EC1R 5EJ

Dear Mr Alton

Certificate of Posting Held

re: Article by Nick Cohen, ‘No Truth Behind Veritas’

I have discussed this article with one of the Assistant Directors of The Press Complaints Commission and they suggest I ask you first to issue a correction through your newspaper. The passage of the article about which I complain is as follows:

‘But on the first count Kilroy isn't as clean as his denunciation of fascism made him sound. The Guardian found a key member of Veritas had co-founded a Eurosceptic campaign group with a former chairman of the National Front. It seems impossible for a party to appear to the right of the Tories which isn't tainted by neo-Nazism’.

There are a great many contentious matters within these three sentences.

The paragraph amounts to a gross distortion. I understand from the Press Complaints Commission that I am entitled to a correction and my oreferred remedy is that you publish the letter which accompanies this letter.

First, whilst I am not named in the article, I am identified in sufficient detail. I was named in the Guardian article referred to by Mr Cohen.

The Guardian is your sister paper. Many people have already contacted me along the lines of: ‘Mr Cohen has accused you in The Observer of being a ‘neo-Nazi’.

Second, I am referred to as a ‘key member of VERITAS’. I am not. I hold no position in VERITAS. I am not one of its officers. I am not one of its spokespersons. I have merely assisted on some administrative matters.

Third, from my being a founder Committee member of People’s Campaign To Keep the Pound, an assumption is made that because a fellow-member of the organisation was once a Chairman of the National Front, that makes him, and therefore by association myself, and thereby by association VERITAS, and thereby by association Mr Kilroy-Silk, as ‘tainted by neo-Nazism’. That is a very serious charge as well as being a cheap and low smear.

For the record, People’s Campaign to Keep the Pound was a cross-party group which for several months produced hundreds of thousands of leaflets explaining the need to keep the pound, at a time when no other group seemed to be active in the field, and when the government was attempting to move the county towards adopting the euro. There is not a trace of anything remotely ‘neo-Nazi’ in these leaflets.

Ian Anderson, my wife and I, and several hundred other people in the Epping/ Harlow area, are members of the Friends of Swaines Green, a group which campaigns to preserve the 17-acre green as common land against development. Mr Anderson is the Chairman of that group. He is well known in Epping and probably his former career in the National Front is known to many. To serve on such a committee - or the committee of People’s Campaign to Keep the Pound - does not remotely make one ‘tainted with neo-Nazism’.

Nick Cohen’s paragraph exposes me - and in turn Robert Kilroy-Silk - to the false charge that I have some sympathy with neo-Nazis and their views. Nothing could be further from the truth. Moreover, I do not believe that Ian Anderson has ever espoused views which could fairly be termed ‘neo-Nazi’. I understand that he left the NF to form another group, the National Democrats, in the mid-1990s because it was becoming too extreme.

My preferred method to resolve this complaint is for you to publish my letter to the editor which accompanies this complaint.

Please let me have your response without delay.

Yours faithfully

Tony Bennett (Copied to Mr William Gore, Assistant Editor, Press Complaints

LETTER TO EDITOR (for publication):

From: Tony Bennett, 66 Chippingfield, HARLOW, Essex, CM17 0DJ

Monday 7 February 2005

Mr Roger Alton Editor Observer Newspaper 3-7 Herval Hill LONDON EC1R 5EJ

Letters to the Editor (For publication - copied to Press Complaints Commission)

Dear Mr Alton

As I do not read The Observer, I have no way of knowing if the standard of Mr Cohen’ journalism is an accurate reflection of your newspaper.

However, his claim (‘No Truth in Veritas’, 6 February) that I, the VERITAS Party and Mr Kilroy-Silk are ‘ tainted with neo-Nazism’ simply because in 2001 I helped to found a cross-party group campaigning to keep the pound amounts to a wholly unjustified smear.

Mr Ian Anderson, myself and several hundred other residents of Harlow (where I live) and nearby Epping (where Mr Anderson lives) are members of the Friends of Swaines Green, a group which campaigns to preserve a 17-acre area of common land on the edge of Epping from development. He is its Chairman. The fact that Mr Anderson chaired the National Front over a decade ago is irrelevant to the work of that group and was equally irrelevant to the work of People’s Campaign to Keep the Pound - an ad hoc group consisting of members of all parties and none - in opposing the adoption of the single currency.

My own record includes 15 years as a Welfare Rights Adviser, often helping those from ethnic minorities with welfare and immigration problems, being a member of Harlow Labour Party from 1985 to 1997, and last year actively helping a Harlow Muslim to win a large compensation claim against the Royal Mail for racial discrimination at an Employment Tribunal. I also write occasionally for two church newspapers, often reporting on the rising tide of anti-Semitism in this country and elsewhere in Europe. Hardly the record of one ‘tainted with neo-Nazism’.

Finally, Cohen refers to me as ‘a key member of VERITAS’. In fact, I hold no position in it.

Yours faithfully

Tony Bennett

UNQUOTE

Now I reproduce a letter from Nuala Cosgrove, Legal Adviser to The Guardian. Note exactly what she says about The Guardian’s claim that I called Mohammed a ‘paedophile’ in a leaflet. I will happily send you the original e-mail from the Guardian if you want to check that I have reproduced this accurately:

QUOTE:

119 Farringdon Road, London EC1R 3ER

Anthony Bennett, 66 Chippingfield, Harlow, Essex, CM17 0DJ

25 February 2005

Dear Mr Bennett

“Kilroy-Silk’s new colleague linked to former NF leader”, Guardian 3 February 2005 (“the article”)

Further to my email dated 11 February 2005, we have investigated your complaint which was sent to the Readers Editor’s office by email at 22.55 on Monday 7 February 2005.

You complain that the article contains four incorrect statements:

1. “A key member of Robert Kilroy-Silk’s new political party”

You state that you are not “a key member”. However, as explained in the article, your name was listed in the Electoral Commission’s database as the official leader of Veritas. Further, the article contains your response that the Electoral Commission’s records were being updated to show Mr Kilroy-Silk as the official leader of Veritas. We understand that you are employed by Mr Kilroy-Silk as a researcher for Veritas.

2. “Anthony Bennett … was also fired from the UK Independence party”

You state that you have never been “fired” by the UK Independence party (UKIP). However, we are aware that you were summarily dismissed from Jeffrey Titford’s (a UKIP MEP) office and that you subsequently brought a claim for unfair dismissal against Mr Titford.

3. “… publishing a pamphlet which describes the Prophet Muhammad as a paedophile.”

We understand that you did not use the word “paedophile” in the pamphlet in question, although we are informed that you described the Prophet Muhammad as a man who had sex with children, something you elaborated on in an interview with the Daily Telegraph in which you were quoted as saying “If that happened in this country today then the person concerned would be charged with child sexual abuse.”

4. “Mr Bennett [was] banned last year from holding any UKIP office for two years.”

We have been informed by Ukip that that you were previously banned from holding elected office in UKIP for a period of two years, but that this ban did not occur last year. We therefore accept that the article was incorrect to state that you were banned last year.

Your views and responses to our journalist’s questions are fully detailed in the article. You acknowledged that had you known Ian Anderson was a former chairman of the National Front at the time that you formed the People’s Campaign to Keep the Pound that you “probably wouldn’t have joined it”.

Oliver Burkeman informs us that his long hand notes of the telephone conversation with you do not record any detail about you denying being sacked or fired by UKIP or about the two elections.

Following our detailed investigation, there appears to be only one (relatively minor) fact which is inaccurate in the article - the date upon which you were banned from holding any UKIP elected office for a period of two years.

Taking all of the above into account, we believe that the article is a fair and accurate report and it is not in breach of the PCC code. On the one limited point about the date of your ban from holding office in UKIP, we would be happy to clarify this by amending the website version of the article to show the correct date. If you could inform us of the precise date, we will ensure that it is accurately amended.

I confirm that I have sent a copy of this letter to Scott Langham at the PCC.

Yours sincerely

Nuala Cosgrove In-house Lawyer Nuala.Cosgrove@guardian.co.uk Direct Phone Number 020 7713 4126 Direct Fax Number 020 7713 4481 Legal Department

cc Scott Langham, PCC

UNQUOTE

By the way, I do not accept some of the other statements in The Guardian response. My leaving Jeffrey Titford’s employment was by mutual agreement, for example. And of course I was never ‘fired’ or ‘sacked’ by UKIP, merely disciplined.

Now some comments on your stated editorial policy.

1. "All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy".

RESPONSE: So please, as you won’t apparently let me correct the page about me, don’t now delay any further in correcting the inaccurate information about me now that I have (again) pointed these inaccuracies out.

2. "It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics".

RESPONSE: It is particularly important that you get the material about me accurate and fair, then, since the contents of the page do seem to be controversial – and were originally posted by someone definitely seeking to portray me in a poor light.

3. "Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit..."

RESPONSE: But yet I am not currently permitted to correct factual inaccuracies in a page about me.

4. "Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks".

RESPONSE: Noted and agreed. Respect must be mutual and requires you to remove inaccuracies as soon as they are pointed out.

5. "And do not worry about messing up".

RESPONSE: Yet when I post a contribution on a discussion page (not an article even), taking the trouble to add my own name at the end (and not a username), the entire content is removed simply for not adding 4 tildes. And Wikipedia readers are told that I have not given my name to the article. Using the letter of the law rather than the spirit (as stated above), you yold readers that my contribution was 'unsigned'

6. "All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. But remember — whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity".

RESPONSE: I respectfully ask you, therefore, to put back on the discussion page the lengthy item you removed.

NOW I TURN TO MY COMPLAINT TO WIKIPEDIA AND WHAT HAS BEEN DONE OR NOT DONE IN RESPONSE:

I wrote: Over the last few days, the following have taken place: 1) Two items I wrote for this discussion page have been deleted without explanation. They were constructive comments of mine and explained the reasons for some of my contributions to the page about me and the CountyWatch page. Who removed this and why?

COMMENT: I request you to put those comments of mine back.

I wrote: 2) False statements have been made about me in the newly edited so-called 'neutral article'. Notably, the claim that I have ever said Mohammed was a paedophile. *I have not*. A press article may have said so, but that was the subject of a successful complaint I made to the Press Complaints Commission.

COMMENT: Please revise in accordance with the letter from Nuala Cosgrove quoted above. I do not object to you quoting what I was alleged to have said to the ‘Sunday Telegraph’.

And, just for the record, I add the following observations. It is a barely disputed historical fact that Mohammed, at the age fo 53 or 54, consummated his earlier betrothal to Aisha when she was 9. Islamic scholars give various justifications for this but do not dispute the facts. Mohammed and Aisha were betrothed when she was aged 6. They remained married until Mohammed died at the age of 63 in AD 632. If this happened in Britain today - or in most countries come to that - Mohammed would be prosecuted for child sexual abuse. But I have never described him as a paedophile.

I wrote: The plain legal fact that Maidstone Crown Court gave me an Absolute Discharge in respect of an allegation of criminal damage against me has been deleted from the article and I require it to be restored. The way it is put in the newspaper article (probably a PA report) is legally inaccurate. Also, it was not a single judge who made the decision on appeal, it was a panel of *three Magistrates sitting as a Crown Court plus Judge Keith Simpson*.

COMMENT: Please restore the reference to my being given an Absolute Discharge on the criminal damage charge, which you have removed. See this URL: http://www.bwmaonline.com/Transport%20-%20Trial%20of%20Mr%20Bennett.htm By the way, the Magistrates’ Appeal Panel consisyted of three INCLUDING Judge Keith Simpson - not four - sorry about the minor error.

The author of the above Internet article was in court throughout.

I wrote: I accept the reference to Ian Anderson being a co-founder of People's Campaign to Keep the Pound - for what it is worth - but would ask that the additional reference to it being a 'white nationalist' party is deleted. The inclusion of that seems designed more to smear than to be be informative. It is also inconsistent with what Wikipedia itself says about 'white nationalism' on that page.

COMMENT: I am not quite sure why my co-founding the short-lived People’s Campaign to Keep the Pound should be carried so prominently on Wikipedia, except that it appears to have excited those who wanted for one reason or another to link me with the National Front. Please look very carefully at my letter to the Observer above, which by the way was published by them the very next Sunday (as a result of my complaint to te PCC) although the editor chose to shorten the letter somewhat. I think you should consider dealing with this episode more neutrally, if at all. I think this is a case of trying to prove some kind of guilt by association.

Given that (a) I knew Ian Anderson through the local environmental action group the Friends of Swaines Green (b) didn’t know that he had been in the NF, and (c) as I now understand it, it was well over a decade since he was last involved with them, does this really warrant any mention at all? Leave it in if you really insist, but at least be fair about it and give my ‘take’ on the matter - thanks.

I wrote: 3) You have now denied me the ability to correct misleading statements in an article about me. I have tried to edit the article i.e. correct the inaccurate information since it was re-written, but cannot do so as it appears I am blocked.

COMMENT: You have not explained why I am blocked and for how long. Coud you please do so?

I wrote: 4) You claimed I had posted information anonymously when in fact I gave my name underneath my contribution… (SNIPPED)

COMMENT: Dealt with above.

I wrote: I would also ask you to note that Wikipedia allowed a malicious entry about me to appear on the page about me on 8 July…

COMMENT: I note your comments, but Wikipedia has a responsibilty – a legal responsibility - not to allow libellous comments on its pages, and must take all reasonable steps to prevent such ‘vandalism’. To put it another way, legally it has a duty of care to prevent vandalism. On this occasion someone was allowed to post libellous material on your site, to download it, to then print it off and circulate it. None of this could happen without Wikipedia allowing a certain level of vandalism. I’m pleased someone spotted it quickly. But if they hadn’t? That libel could have stayed up for weeks.

I wrote: And please be fair enough to restore the message I wrote for this page a few days ago, so that everyone can see it and judge for themselves.

COMMENT: Dealt with above.

Tony Bennett Tony Bennett Tony Bennett 23:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a very quick reply as I dont have the time right now to read all of that. However, despite your assurances that you do now understand how wikipedia works, you clearly do not. Words such as "colleagues" show you still don't and most definitely by asking me anything about why you were apparently blocked. I will for now answer these points:

1. "What I don’t quite follow is why you could not have, for example, e-mailed me with your proposed corrections and invited my observations before posting. It would have saved an awful lot of trouble on both sides."

You said above that you have an understanding of how wikipedia works, again you clearly do not. Wikipedia does not work by contacting the subject of an article with proposals for corrections. Again I will ask you to check the guidelines. Do you seriously think that for every single person who has an article on wikipedia that the editors (who are as I keep saying to you, just everyday people who edit on wikipedia in the same way you or I do) contact that person to discuss changes?

2. "Also, you have not explained why I am blocked from editing the page. Nor for how long I am blocked." And you seriously expect me to believe that you understand how wikipedia works now? I am an editor, a user on wikipedia, in exactly the same way you are an editor/user on wikipedia. I am not an adminstrator, I don't block anyone nor do I have the right to block anyone, nor do I wish to. If you had checked and understood how wikipedia works as you state you have, then you would see that is the case and you would not be directing your question about you being blocked to me. So please refer your question to an Adminstrator, not another editor.

3. "You claim that I made a threat re legal action. Look carefully again at my actual words: “Wikipedia, by allowing a 'neutral' editor to post further false information about me - and without even permitting me to correct it - is running itself at risk of legal consequences”." And you again miss the point, and mis-understand how wikipedia works and what I meant. I have tried and tried and tried suggesting, urging you to read how wikipedia works, the guidelines and policies, but your response again shows that you both do not appear to have done so, and you totally misundertstood what I was saying which had nothing to do with "wikipedia itself" and legal consequences.

Just one other point following on from the above -

"I write well over 100 articles a year for Christian newspapers. I have to check my facts carefully, especially when writing about a living individual. Often I will check with a individual if I am writing a controversial article about them. Does not Wikipedia do the same?" Please, please, please stop, take a rest, maybe have a cup of tea and read how wikipedia works, there are plenty of pages about the structure of the place and so on. " Does not Wikipedia do the same?" There is no "wikipedia" to check anything. There are individual editors/users like you, like me who add content.

As for the rest of it, I do not have the time right now to even read it all, never mind take it all in. However, I will say it yet again to you that wikipedia is not what you clearly seem to think it is. You really would be best spending time finding out how wikipedia works as despite what you say in your the first part of your response, you appear still not to understand how it works.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this discussion to here as it is mostly general content about wikipedia and is best dealt with on here. I still do not have the time to answer all your lengthy comments in full and with the full answers which the deserve. However, unfortunately, whilst I am not doubting what you say to be true above about the letters you have received, are there any online articles that can back up what you say, specifically about the wording in the pamplet? Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not having dealt with this as yet. I have edited on wikipedia but still not had the time needed to answer this fully and correctly. I will though once again refer to my question above about any online articles that back up what you have inserted above. I will be able to edit the article once you answer and provide third party reliable, and verifiable, sources. I will also be able to answer your comments above soon. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to this section from Tony Bennett's first message of this section:

I would also ask you to note that Wikipedia allowed a malicious entry about me to appear on the page about me on 8 July albeit that it was corrected i.e. deleted by someone from Wikipedia the following day, all without my knowledge. I would like to add as matter of fact that Essex Police are currently investigating the malicious message on Wikipedia, which was subsequently downloaded by the perpetrator and used in a libellous fashion against me. It was downloaded after it was posted up and then printed off and sent to various contact of mine. Not very nice - and Wikipedia must take its share of the blame for that episode.

and this, in a later message:

Given the appearance of malicious and inaccurate material about me, currently the subject of a Police enquiry, on Wikipedia within the last few weeks,...

the following section from Wikipedia:No legal threats may be informative:

You should always first attempt to resolve disputes using Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures. If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we require that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. You should instead contact the person or people involved directly. If your issue involves Wikipedia itself, you should contact Wikipedia's parent organisation, the Wikimedia Foundation. If you make legal threats, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other than legal channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding.

(I've run some paragraphs together to get the quoting right.) Now, I do not know whether Tony Bennett is blocked from editing a particular article or not, as I am just an ordinary user. But if he is, then this may well explain why he could be blocked from editing, given what he says is happening with respect to a police investigation. I hope this might go some way to resolving one of the issues Tony has mentioned. DDStretch (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Active Resistance to Metrication[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Active Resistance to Metrication, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Hoary (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Signing in articles[edit]

I see you have just returned to editing after an 8 year gap - just a quick reminder - please do not sign additions in actual articles, as you did at CountyWatch - Arjayay (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]