Talk:Julia Mulligan

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... it describes an elected politican in the UK covering a 'constituency' larger than those of MPs. Other PCCs have articles - see Category:Police and Crime Commissioners. --Crookesmoor (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained Revisions
Can somebody please explain why a group of people, including Julia Mulligan, are constantly removing propertly sourced material from this entry without giving a plausible or factual reason, while leaving material that is described as, "...unsourced or poorly sourced [that] must be removed immediately."?

Properly sourced material is being removed, while unsourced material is being left in place.

Is there a plausible reason for this?

194.166.52.238 (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it's not properly sourced as the source is a glorified Wordpress blog (with an attack ad on every page) which makes no pretense of following journalistic standards. Per WP:BLPSOURCES: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." -- Neil N    talk to me  05:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you have not read the source material given. It refers to official documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, correspondence with officials, etc.

And you do not explain why the unsourced material has been left there.

You do not give a plausible reason for this bizarre and inconsistent behaviour.

194.166.52.238 (talk) 06:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added sources to one section and removed the other. -- Neil N   talk to me  06:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Funny how quick you had these to hand. Friend of Julia Mulligan's are you? 194.166.52.238 (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Never heard of her until today. But I know how to use Google. -- Neil N   talk to me  06:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Strange statement that. You have intervened in this matter before today, so please explain your statement "Never heard of her until today"?

194.166.52.238 (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Try again (I assume you can understand what the "first edit" column represents?) -- Neil N   talk to me  07:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's an example of the evidence showing how questionsable your statements are. Do see:

''User talk:178.191.204.99 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search July 2013

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Julia Mulligan. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The sources must be of high quality NeilN talk to me 19:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Have you checked the references for their validity? So a reference to an official publication of the British Houses of Parliament is a "poor reference"? I would suggest you have a good look at the references and revert the edit. Thank you!

See WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTH. --NeilN talk to me 19:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I would say a first hand report of a debate in the British Houses of Parliament, references to correspondence and official documents is a primary source. Please revert the edit, as the factual information given is properly sourced and factually correct.

The "Real Whitby" is not an acceptable source, so no. --NeilN talk to me 19:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

"Real Whitby" is not an acceptable source? "Private Eye" uses its material, the "Express" uses its material, MPs refer to it, local authorities refer to it, so why is it not acceptable to you?

It's a glorified Wordpress blog which makes no pretense of following journalistic standards. --NeilN talk to me 19:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

May I ask what the basis of your unsourced assumption is? And primary sources follow journalistic standards? I see.

178.191.204.99 (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It runs on Wordpress. There's an attack ad on every page. --NeilN talk to me 19:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

And? May I ask if you have a valid point here? If so, what is it? Would it not be easier to admit you have made an error of judgement and revert the edit?

178.191.204.99 (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This will be my last post - it is an unacceptable source. Attempt to re-add the material will only get you reported and quite likely blocked. --NeilN talk to me 19:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah! So you don't have a valid argument. I thought that was the case. I apologise for confusing you with the facts when you have made up your mind already. Good night!

178.191.204.99 (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC) ''

So you claim not to have heard of Julia Mulligan until today? You claim not to be a friend of hers, yet you keep deleting properly sourced material available in the public domain from respected sources, which she considers to be "defamatory", when the truth cannot possibly be defamatory.

It seems to me you have an undeclared conflict of interests here. 194.166.52.238 (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you read dates and times? Not everyone is on U.K. time you know. And if you bothered to check the edit history you'd see that multiple editors are removing the text because the source is unacceptable. Keith D is even a Wikipedia admin. The only editors who have a conflict of interest are those trying to turn the article into a soapbox. -- Neil N    talk to me  08:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry to say that Wikipedia editors seem rather poorly trained if they cannot recognise reliable sourcing and established facts.

194.166.52.238 (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that NeilN is not denying repeated allegations on Wikipedia of "editing" contributions in pursuit of a personal agenda. 178.191.202.74 (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you read this? "Never heard of her until today. But I know how to use Google. --NeilN 06:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)" -- Neil N   talk to me  17:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Still evading the questions you have been asked. And accusations of partiality have been made against you on other pages, so googling "Julia Mulligan" is not the issue, just your general dishonesty.

88.117.47.81 (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For last time:


 * 1) I have no interest whatsoever in Mulligan or her career.
 * 2) The only agenda I have is making sure Wikipedia guidelines and policies are met. Specifically WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:SOAPBOX for this article. -- Neil N    talk to me  18:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

So the fact that she is using the article as a soapbox and deleting all unfavourable comments about herself is within Wikipedia guidelines? I see. And the fact you are doing the same is just coincidence. I get it.

88.117.47.81 (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)