User talk:146.200.49.138

As clearly noted, recording criticism and controversy by public servants and in media reports is fair, legitimate and accurate. The above comment resorts to dramatised, emotive and opinion-based language. The criticism is unsubstantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RottenBoroughs (talk • contribs)


 * No idea what you are on about but you may wish to engage on the article talk page. You may also find that and/or  have something to say. I am  - have a new phone and forgot to log in originally. No intention of editing regularly at the moment but saw the Christian Wakeford article and it was an obvious hit job based on misuse of primary sources etc. 146.200.49.138 (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You are ignoring - or avoiding addressing - the valid criticism of your deletions. It is unjustified to claim you have "no idea" what this is about - particularly when you have cited the page it refers to in your comment!  The edits you have made seem to be politically motivated, as you have repeatedly removed significant amounts of content that contained truthful, balanced, recent and cited criticism of an MP in the media and other sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RottenBoroughs (talk • contribs) 12:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * See WP:TPG regarding indents and signing. Also WP:NPA. 146.200.49.138 (talk)


 * Indent is a trivial matter. (Breach of House of Commons Code of Conduct by an MP is not, as you described in your deletion), a trivial matter. Awaiting 's response to address criticism of their edits, four para above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RottenBoroughs (talk • contribs)