User talk:82.36.53.13

April 2022
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Ched Evans. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Ched Evans, you may be blocked from editing. —C.Fred (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * What you are calling disruptive editing, I call fair, honest, in context, and tells the whole story taking the linear nature side by side with the outcome. How about you justify your self-appointed nature as a judge? I don't have to prove anything.I will not reply again, if you for a third time simply hide behind a construct of a nature that allows you not to have to justify why you are holding views that are incorrect,unbiased and unfair.
 * I wonder,when certain people are not 'fact checking' on Facebook, are they hear denying facts to a wider audience?
 * Your call ref. Your conscience. 82.36.53.13 (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 4 I assure you, the poor content is the blocking of your writing, Sir. Whilst I suffer the slings and arrows, you continue to think that Orwell's 1984 was somehow a 'how to' guide. You are not Ched Evans' judge. Realise this please. 82.36.53.13 (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * To be clear: if there are updates to the case, you need to provide links to reliable sources that support the updates. Under no circumstances may you alter a direct quotation that's in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * 5 As I have said several times now, and if you look very carefully at the small parts I altered, they only served to add context mostly. The writing is essentially upside down. You literally end a section and paragraph saying that Ched Evans was convicted of Rape. (I added the fact after so that nobody would leave Wikipedia misinformed, when the reader failed to read on and took you at your printed word) Just adding the words Mr Evans would be later found not guilty in a retrial would make it fair and honest. Why did you end an entire sub heading with a sentence that only exists in the past tense, yet not even historically. You are telling a tale of something that was erased, taken back, deleted, expunged, quashed. I do not have to justify my language to you. I am English, and 'our' language belongs to our Queen. Please use that gift appropriately. Not a tabloid sensationalist. Ched Evans was a Premier League footballer before this accusation was made. Instead of a millionaire, he simply earned a wage in lower leagues. Look at the whole painting, because anyone could slap BANKSY on it. Genuine is everything 82.36.53.13 (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, IP82 kept trying to reply with something that (incorrectly) set off a filter regarding use of certain words in userspace. Since this is a content dispute anyways, at I've directed them toward the article's talkpage instead.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 08:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well that was the most sense spoken of by anyone on the side of Wikipedia on that occasion. The entire project will fail unless Wikipedia remains unbiased, solely concentrating on facts. I suggest that nobody be allowed to be involved that has clear political bias. That will solve so much. 82.36.53.13 (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)