User talk:50.96.71.158

March 2024
Hello, I'm Jtrrs0. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Jack Letts have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * What do you mean "not constructive"? The article is clearly biased, stating only one side of the story, and assumes Jack's affiliation with ISIS and his guilt, even though he has NOT been charged with a crime, and has had his fundamental rights stripped. How is he supposed to defend himself when gatekeepers to 'his' page don't allow evidence supporting his innocence to be posted there? FreeJackLetts.com, a site owned by Jack's parents posts links to mainstream media articles (mainly), as well as content describing the actions Jack's parents, government officials, professionals, friends and other supporters have taken to bring awareness to Jack's plight and to make sure he has a chance to be given fair treatment under the Rule of Law, International Law, the Magna Carta... I have cited FreejackLetts.com several times, only to have the reference removed. This is completely unethical! 50.96.71.158 (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * How is he supposed to defend himself when gatekeepers to 'his' page don't allow evidence supporting his innocence to be posted there? Wikipedia is no barrier to his defense. Any well sourced evidence that is or isn't presented in the article is readily available direct from the original source. I'd hate to think any worthwhile court would rely on Wikipedia content as evidence instead of relying on the original sources. to bring awareness to Jack's plight and to make sure he has a chance to be given fair treatment under the Rule of Law Again, Wikipedia's purpose does not include promoting awareness of anything, or being a crucial part of legal evidence.  signed, Willondon (talk)  17:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with Willondon here. I'd also encourage you to discuss the content of the Article in its talk page rather than here, that way more people might see and can contribute. At the moment the article does not seem biased to me but merely to be reporting fairly the sources available. The website FreeJackLetts.com is self-evidently not a reliable source. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What constitutes "reliable"? 50.96.71.158 (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read the linked guideline. It explains it. Happy to answer specific questions. Jtrrs0 (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I see you've added content sourced to the Toronto Star and the Ottawa Citizen (opinion piece). That's regarded as reliably sourced. Not only do they report on things you wish to add, it indicates that it is noteworthy. Often, primary sources, like the parents' campaign itself can't vouch for notability, and they are not regarded as reliable as the reporting that fact checks things before publishing.  signed, Willondon (talk)  18:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jack Letts. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from more false accusations! Vandalism. Good Lord. 50.96.71.158 (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)