User talk:51.219.80.178

''This is intended for the person who contributed to R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland. If this means nothing to you, then you have inherited a network address used in the past, please ignore.''

Blogs
I'm sorry that I have had to revert your addition of a personal blog to R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland. See Wikipedia policy WP:BLOGS.

If you deleted the Constitutional Law Association blogs on the basis of "all blogs or no blogs", I agree but I felt I ought to gain consensus before doing so, see talk:R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland. Feel free to contribute to that debate. You don't need a wikipedia logon but you may find it more convenient. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

This blog was not self published... User:51.219.80.178‎; 14:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nor is it in a peer reviewed journal or a book. You might well argue, as I do, that the other blogs had no better status. In my view, the importance of this case is such that Wikipedia should not facilitate first-flush commentary - but that is why I raised the question on the talk page. My opinion is no more valid than yours just because I have a logon name! Wikipedia tries to decide what is right by consensus at talk pages, but fundamentally WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper and follows events rather than trying to run with them. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)