Talk:Anne Main

Persistent IP edits to remove text
A number of efforts have been made, by various IP addresses (possibly, or possibly not, the same user) to remove referenced text from this article. In order to have a centralised discussion, I've copied the text below from User talk:89.194.71.161: Hi, why are you supporting the placement of political activist created additions which have not just affected this entry but many other MPs. having reviewed a number of these entries me and other have found that they are usually excerpts from newspapers which contain inaccuracies to support vexatious reporting. So you believe it is justified to put something that is controversial on the wiki rather than a) provide a balanced view of what the individual has undertaken b) where an individual has followed a set of rules. If you had a similart situation where you had followed a set of rules and guidelines and asked advice and then followed it, but were later told to forget the past actually you shouldnt have done it - do you think that is fair? I read this extract from wiki policies from biographies of living persons.Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines.

I think folk would be happy if there was a balance rather then aha I can get political points from this and my invetsigation is that opponents of the sitting MP normally are driving these activies, of all party sides I have to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonesF678 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you talking to me? I don't have any strong views on the content, I'm just implementing the results of the discussion that took place here, and reinstating referenced and non-defamatory material in line with Wikipedia policy.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Ghmyrtle, you are correct that the supposed policy of referenced and non-defamatory materil may apply to those entries, but a few of us consider that this policy is being maligned because the only reason that the entries are being made is to embarrass the folks in question and to get a negative response from the reader. IE using it as a newspaper in fact. They have not done it for altruistic interests. Can i ask why you have taken it on yourself (if you have) to police these modifications if you have no particular interest in the topic. Doesnt the way the policy is being interpreted mean that activists who have an agenda can just put negative details that may meet the policy that you refer to but damage the reputation of the people on question. EG let's say you had a personal entry and someone posted the fact that you had had a car accident and killed an individual through careless driving (assuming this was true), then this would meet the policy be referenced and non-defamatory material as it would be a fact but would that be fair that they decided to do this to cause damage which I think is the real reason behind these entry additions? JonesF678 (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you wish to discuss the content of the Anne Main page, it would be better to do it at the talk page for that article. It may be a good idea to copy this discussion, setting out your views, to that page, which would then be more likely to involve other editors in the discussion and develop a consensus.  Although I don't have any interest at all in either Ms Main or her political opponents, it is clear that she has been the subject of articles in a respected national newspaper, and to that extent those are worthy of mention here, without giving them undue weight. My point was that simply reverting edits which you do not like, without any explanation, is unacceptable behaviour. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

MASSIVE conflict of interest
User:JoeCawley, who admits he works for Main, has been tinkering with this article for some time. Most of his stuff has been reverted, but he just doesn't seem to understand how we work here. -- Orange Mike |  Talk  14:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have reverted all content that is non-encylopedic and/or uses non-reliable sources. This article cannot be used as a public relations tool for a politician. For the benefit of other editors, here is where JoeCawley admitted working for Main, which was then autosigned. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC) 20:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not related to Kerry Pollard
Just in case anyone should wonder, I am not related to Kerry Pollard, so I have no conflict of interest in adding information to this article. I belong to the branch of Pollards that hails from Virginia. Bill Pollard (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)