m Signing comment by 193.128.223.67 - "→re: Daily Mail: new section" |
No edit summary |
||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
You chose to delete it <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/193.128.223.67|193.128.223.67]] ([[User talk:193.128.223.67|talk]]) 16:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
You chose to delete it <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/193.128.223.67|193.128.223.67]] ([[User talk:193.128.223.67|talk]]) 16:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
"Please stop vandalising the Daily Mail article with biased opinions, these comments have no sources and are false and libellous. I will be reporting these edits to administrators. Also please do not attempt to post a 'criticisms' section. It will be removed and we will have you blocked from wikipedia. You have been warned" |
|||
Christian, I was alarmed by this threat I read. Bearing in mind the only update was that it was a "conservative newspaper". Which is neither libelloeous, false, and is fully sourceable. |
|||
I should remind you that you are not a censor, do not own the page, and are not responsible for it's editorial or political stance. Your only role is to make sure that the page reports fact. |
|||
I have already reported the page to administrators, because of your recent censorships, and deletions. It's fair enough to delete untruths. But when you are deleting sourceable facts, it amounts to bias, and censorship. |
|||
Like any magazine wikipedia page, a criticism section is fully valid, if sourceable and accurate. And I fully intend to collate one and post. |
|||
If you continue to delete, and frankly vandalise, sourceable fact from this page, then I will again report you for censorship, and vandalisation. |
|||
This is not a PR statement on a paper. And you have no right to delete anything you think paints the picture in an unfavourable light - if it is sourceable and fact. |
|||
As an example, you deleted a link to the Mail's recent fine from the Press Complaints Commission, in regards to the infamous "immigrants eat swans" story. An example of your censorship and editorial bias. |
|||
And I suggest you stop threatening people into stopping making edits. All of these threats have been noted - as have your own edits, and deletions, and I think you may find yourself as the one being blocked |
Revision as of 17:39, 6 July 2009
Re: McFly Genre
Hey, no I don't think so. I request previously that the page had lock on it so only members could edit it but it was declined and it had even more edits than right now. I know it's annoying but the best thing we can do is give them warmings and hope they go away/get banned. -- Stacey talk to me 16:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Blackpool
Thank you for your message. I realise what the population of Blackpool is, I was born, brought up in and lived in the town all my life, and I know how it compares to other towns. However, it is not a large town, it is though an average sized town. Adding "large" is too subjective. The lead section has this about the town, stating that it is "the fourth-largest settlement in North West England behind Manchester, Liverpool and Warrington" which is ample to show its size. Thank you.--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Newspaper infobox
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_Newspaper where a person who was actively pushing odd political affiliations for the Daily Mail tried to do an "end run" on the infobox. Note that "fascist" was ok by him -- I have no idea his ratinale, other than to accuse me of editwarring for putting in the cited "conservative." Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Note the reverts on Daily Mail again. Collect (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks, does that editor never give up, your sources are more than comprehensive and it has been changed again, I have undone the edit. Christian1985 (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Colonel at it again.
In Daily Mail, of course. He has also chimed in at WP:Requests for comment/Collect now in league with others -- asserting that I am editwarring on that article. Thabks! Collect (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, will he ever give up? Christian1985 (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
He and his friends are running an exercise in votestacking without een following proper WP procedures. I will not silicit anyine to go there as it legitimazes a quite illegitimate exercise. Collect (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Daily Mail
Warden has hit again. Gwen Gale has barred me from politics reverts for a while, so I am tied. GL! Collect (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Reversions of vandalism are not subject to the 3-revert rule. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Warden is not a vandal -- just a person with a very strong and persistent agenda (he even has tried editing templates to make a change in a page using them <g>). The Daily Mail is about as Tory a paper as the UK has -- but he was willing to have it labelled "extreme right wing" etc. rather than admit what it is to everyone else. As for who the IPs are -- that is anyone's guess. I suspect they may be ones with named accounts as well, as the pattern of edits is not that of a clueless newbie by a mile. Collect (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Daily Mail and other IP vandals
In cases of persistant IP vandalism, you can either post here Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or request temporary page semi-protection Wikipedia:Requests for page protection - which might be the best bet for the same vandalism coming from multiple IPs. In cases of blantant vandalism, 3RR doesnt count for the remover of vandalism - I am not sure that in this instance I would have declared it "blatant vandalism" without having another editor on line back up the assessment. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Reply
Your comment on my talk page was over the top and almost Orwellian. If you think what I did was vandalism, it's ok to say so (though I disagree that it was) but not in such an aggressive manner, and certainly not going on about reporting people. That is not the done thing on wikipedia, as there are much less stringent ways to complain/warn someone for the first potential vandalism. Especially since you haven't told me what I've done wrong, only that it's "vandalism" and that you're reporting IPs for it (why only IPs? Do you have some negative attitude to people who haven't registered?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.185.243 (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
re: Daily Mail
Christian
I do not feel that posting the fact that the Daily Mail is considered a right wing, conservative paper, is vandalism.
Especially as you are merely replacing it with almost PR for the paper - claiming it's a "voice for middle england" and "conservatism with a small c". If you delete "right wing" for having no source, why do you put things like that in the article?
I am more inclined to believe that your consistent censorship of the page - as in deleting anything that you feel paints the paper in a negative light - is vandalism in itself.
Deleting sourcable points, because you do not like what they imply is vandalism in itself. And censorship. Which goes against wikipedia rules.
I notice a continuing trend on your page is to threaten people, claiming they are vandalising pages.
I'd like to inform you that I see your own edits, and deletions as censorship, vandalisation, and plan to report your own actions to Wikipedia should they continue.
Deleting anything unfavourable, towards the daily mail is not encyclopedic. It's PR and censorship.
The Daily Mail being investigated by the PPC, for wrongly claiming "immigrants were eating swans" did happen, and was sourced.
You chose to delete it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.67 (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
"Please stop vandalising the Daily Mail article with biased opinions, these comments have no sources and are false and libellous. I will be reporting these edits to administrators. Also please do not attempt to post a 'criticisms' section. It will be removed and we will have you blocked from wikipedia. You have been warned"
Christian, I was alarmed by this threat I read. Bearing in mind the only update was that it was a "conservative newspaper". Which is neither libelloeous, false, and is fully sourceable.
I should remind you that you are not a censor, do not own the page, and are not responsible for it's editorial or political stance. Your only role is to make sure that the page reports fact.
I have already reported the page to administrators, because of your recent censorships, and deletions. It's fair enough to delete untruths. But when you are deleting sourceable facts, it amounts to bias, and censorship.
Like any magazine wikipedia page, a criticism section is fully valid, if sourceable and accurate. And I fully intend to collate one and post.
If you continue to delete, and frankly vandalise, sourceable fact from this page, then I will again report you for censorship, and vandalisation.
This is not a PR statement on a paper. And you have no right to delete anything you think paints the picture in an unfavourable light - if it is sourceable and fact.
As an example, you deleted a link to the Mail's recent fine from the Press Complaints Commission, in regards to the infamous "immigrants eat swans" story. An example of your censorship and editorial bias.
And I suggest you stop threatening people into stopping making edits. All of these threats have been noted - as have your own edits, and deletions, and I think you may find yourself as the one being blocked