User talk:80.42.39.51

January 2021
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. ''Please stop blanking content from the lead. Also, the redirect targets you changed weren't appropriate alterations; please take them to WP:RfD if you want to pursue them.'' ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * In addition, please note the 3 revert rule. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * See continued discussion on my talk page. I'm willing to AGF that they're neutrally trying to improve the article, in iterative steps. I haven't stayed up to date with each edit, but I'll give them a chance at least. Perhaps it'll all come together when they're done. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks ProcrastinatingReader for the information. IP, apologies, I was unaware of this discussion. I've removed my warning message. Please continue with building Wikipedia. -- Ashley yoursmile!  14:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Continued edit war
Wikipedia is developed by consensus and this is particularly important for controversial subjects: wp:neutral point of view requires fair reporting of all mainstream points of view. Whilst in principle you may wp:be bold, you need also be prepared for the wp:bold, revert, discuss procedure that will undo all the changes that you have made. It is generally more productive to use the article talk page to propose the change you believe should be made. wp:Wikipedia is not a forum so any material has to be supported by citation of a wp:reliable source. So there is really no point in trying to bash in the same changes in the absence of such consensus because they will be reverted and if you persist, you will be blocked from editing. Which would be a real pity as Wikipedia welcomes a range of perspectives. (You picked a particularly difficult topic because the article has been through many iterations and talk page debates: its present form reflects that consensus.). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

'Blame' is not relevant. You are new here and I don't expect you to be aware of the standards we like to set ourselves (we don't always succeed but we try) to write a credible encyclopedia as good or better than Britannica, and how we try to achieve them. Yes, I tried first to repair your unintentional errors but in all honesty I had gotten to the point of reverting the lot pending discussion but got called away. I hate to see someone's wp:good faith work put in the shredder but you really did pick a difficult subject to learn on. Even though multiple editors have reverted your changes, as per the notes above we do recognise that your edits are not deliberately disruptive and were made in good faith to try to correct flaws that you perceive in the article. Please use the article talk page to propose the changes you believe should be made. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did revert your continued attempt to own the article. You are unwelcome to post on my talk page, please restrict your comments to the appropriate place. FDW777 (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I agree with your comments about new users. Wikipedia is, indeed, at times an unwelcoming place for them. It's nothing to do with sex, ethnicity or anything like that. It's more about a systemic dislike of new users, especially IP users. Many users who think they are "experienced" seek to limit the access of new users in numerous ways (semi-protection and extended semi-protection), even warning them off particular articles. Having said it's nothing about women editors, I know that the sometimes aggressive and confrontational environment of Wikipedia will put off many women from editing. In my not-inconsiderate experience of these things, women are more comfortable in an environment where co-operation is the order of the day. Sadly, such an environment is not often found on Wikipedia. A large number of editors prefer to assail other editors with a deluge of policy links to try and win an argument (the most important policy is WP:IAR). You may find the following of interest:. It comes from this publication. I hope you continue to edit here and are not put off by the prevailing climate. Arcturus (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said above, Wikipedia welcomes a variety of perspectives. Wikipedia depends on consensus and is unaccommodating to the (classically male) approach of just bash it in and wear out anyone who disagrees. There is no evidence of a "systematic dislike of new users", but some whose experience of shared space is based on unevidenced assertion and counter-assertion on social media may be taken aback by the demand for supporting evidence. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you felt the need to jump on this welcome thread and be so defensive, deny the evidence (Arcturus linked two reports), but you should perhaps look and the possessive and mansplaining comments you've already made "Put it all in the shredder" as if you are the arbitor of what belongs in the article. Its very gatekeepery particularly on a message that was welcoming me!!


 * That was not my intention, so if that is how it came across then evidently I didn't make a good job of it. I read the pubpub.org comments as saying "don't even bother".
 * Anyway, the reason I'm back here again was actually to thank you for the material you added about the CBI and BRC, especially that you provided supporting citations: that is the sort of contribution that is very welcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I am just trying to improve the article, and write in a neutral way, I am aware that we all have unconcious bias so would welcome any constructive criticism such as on the suggested text for the new lead, but I just seem to be barraged with a wall of policies i've violated rather than suggestions. 80.42.39.51 (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding unsourced opinion - January 2021
Sources need to directly support relevant content. Continuing to add content based on a Reuters news article which states nothing close to your assertion is disruptive editing. See WP:UNSOURCED. Cambial foliage❧ 16:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The only person being disruptive is you, I have repeatedly tried to work with you but you choose to be confrontational instead 80.42.39.51 (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Removing the large passages of your original research or restatement of partisan sources as fact is not confrontational but merely following the appropriate policy, as linked to above. Cambial foliage❧ 16:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you are the only one push any partisan position by the looks of it with trying to focus the article on the Scottish Government's objections rather. So I would perhaps reflect if I were you. I am trying to take out the partisanness of the article as it was when I found it. 80.42.39.51 (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

How to format a proposed version
I got a bit confused by one of your recent edits to the talk page until I realised that you were contributing a draft rather than you stating a position. So I thought you might like to know about a formatting template that you could use to identify a draft, see template:quote. Here is an example of it in use: "Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this our son of York"

which I did by typing "Now is the hour of our discontent made glorious summer by this our son of York" See how it gets indented and set off. Its normal use is in main articles but there is no harm in recycling it to use in talk pages. You don't have to do this, it is just the way I like to do it. Other editors would just stick an asterisk in front of the draft like this: (the asterisk gets turned into a bullet when you publish). Whichever you prefer. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this our son of York

Thank you that is really helpful 80.42.39.51 (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep it up
Thank you for making a concerted attempt to bring neutrality and objectivity to the UK Internal Market Act article, you are one of many to have attempted this against what can only be described the a wall of excuses and faux integrity to keep it otherwise. Please do not lose heart; logic and reason are on your side! 146.198.108.131 (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

That's very kind. They don't seem to be able to accept that other people might know things or have expertise.

New message from AlanM1
—[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 18:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2021
Your recent editing history at United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   08:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

New name, Same person
After many tries I have found an account name! With thanks to Chris Troutman for the suggestion

You'll find me here now PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)