Talk:John Nicolson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Nicolson (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 May 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 17:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


– Even the dab page is attracting more traffic than any of the other topics.[1] Unreal7 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

2015 General Elections and Page Protection[edit]

I filed a page protection request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#John_Nicolson, because edits by a large range of IPs and autoconfirmed editors have been making edits such as this, in order to "Removed incorrect and biased content designed to malign", much in the same way as other edit summaries of other users. Johnuniq declined my request here.

1) Johnuniq's interpretation of WP:PRIMARY policy is incorrect in this case. In this case for an internal party election to determine the candidates the party should field for the Scottish elections. As this is an internal matter, it would make sense the general election itself would have gained more significance rather than the internal elections itself, therefore information on it has been very hard to obtain, and the website of the part, the SNP itself does not keep historical information on their party elections. In this case, as a social media page clearly belonging to John and his posts on the matter being totally self-explanatory, with the absence of media coverage on this issue such primary sources should be considered. In this case the primary source use in the edits clearly wasn't synthesis or OR.

2) Daily Mail has received consensus that it is an unreliable source of information. Nevertheless, page thirteen of the Scottish Daily Mail, 28 November 2019 [3] clearly mentions this. It's not known if the article writer himself used Wikipedia as a source of information, but isn't this already discussed on Wikipedia about the problems with secondary sources?

3) Among the recent registered users, User:MSturrock and User:Sonofxr, this message from MSturrock to me is fascinating: As you know, there is concerted effort to edit the John Nicolson page in a way that is politically biased an untruthful. "I have been trying to protect political neutrality by deleting these. It is important the malicious edits are allowed given the general election tomorrow." Please restore the page to a version before the general election campaign began (4 NOV 2019) and disallow further edits until 2200 on 12 December 2019 after polls close, so that political neutrality is kept. Johnuniq, I'm not sure if this totally went above your head, but this is clearly POV-pushing (WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS) against the consensus clearly established from the repeated reversions by of the deletion. Once again be reminded the removals were made by multiple different users and reverted by multiple different accounts.

4) I am disappointed with Johnuniq for not even considering full protection to sort out issues regarding lack of agreement, if any, on the removed content. The sheer number of editors participating in the removal and restoration of the said content is already a problem. At the very least article should be reverted to the pre-removal version, and then a discussion should occur. I had already ceased reverting the article before making the report. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 12:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also invite Deepfriedokra (who granted the current semi-protection), Aranya, Paisarepa, CLCStudent, some of the editors involved in the reversions to take part in this discussion. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 12:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Malcolmxl5: would you like to give your thoughts too? Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 12:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The protection request discussion can be seen at this permalink. I asked about the issue here at WP:RSN. Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment appears to be a case of SNP partisans (or just one with socks?) trying to remove information they feel is embarrassing. The repeated lie in the edit summaries (saying the information is wrong, when it isn't) seems to destroy much possibility of AGF, and supports the idea that this is a concerted effort (if it is multiple people at all). I imagine it'll stop now the elections passed, but wiki should be quicker at blocking such spammy/votey nonsense editwarring. 86.173.65.225 (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Optakeover Regarding deletion of 'unsuccessful candidacies' section: This title is a biased and incorrect description of John Nicolson's participation in these candidacy elections. As noted previously, and as is common practice in SNP elections, John Nicolson withdrew his candidacy for multiple listed seats after he was selected by the East Dunbartonshire membership. As per SNP rules, he is required to withdraw. This is not an 'unsuccessful candidacy', and is politically biased and unneutral phraseology. Similarly, the sources supplied are Tweets from unverified accounts. This is not a reliable source of information. As advised, it would be wise to revert this section of the page to as it was before the election when the page editing from political opponents began. Similarly, the phraseology regarding John Nicolson's choice to move seats from East Dunbartonshire was edited in a way to imply that he moved due to perceived greater chance of electoral success. There is no evidence to support this, and the references to overturning majorities ought to be deleted. I'm sure you'll agree that the best course of action was and is to maintain the fact that John Nicolson was elected to the Ochil and South Perthshire seat on the 12 December General Election and otherwise revert the page to as it was prior to the election period.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Nicolson&oldid=1209370246"