User talk:Againstcyber bullying

Fair point. Though the likes of you and I need to be careful when posting talk comments lest we leave ourselves open to allegations of threats. I agree, the insertion of anonymous information is detrimental to the Wikipedia project. I also feel that the anonymous reverts are equally as shameful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judas goat (talk • contribs) 04:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No - the "editor" stated that Ms Swan was "disgusting" for smoking and presented information suggesting she had stated something that she had not - the referenced article did not contain such a statement. Perhaps I could have suggested that they had misquoted Ms Swan but I still contend that the comments were judgmental and personal - noted there was definitely a "violation". Your edits however relate only to the facts of the matter - a welcome change to the way in which internet information is presented. Don't you find the aberration of facts by such conjecture offensive? When we fail to call poor behaviour for what it is we give in to bullies. I have no doubt that the "editor" knew exactly what they were doing.

Now, now - there is no need to engage in cyber bullying - perhaps a kinder way of putting it would be to suggest that the editor forgot to cite sources or violated the rules of BLP. Emotive statements don't add anything to Wikipedia User:Judas_goat —Preceding undated comment added 09:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It was the way it was framed that was the issue. There is no need to be judgmental and personal. Chrissie Swan has the right to make choices and not have anonymous wikipedia "editors" writing hideous things. Re-insert your "information" but remove the opinion and condemnation or I will continue to edit it.

Reference to smoking whilst pregnant should not be undone as Swan has spoken to several media outlets about this and it is relevant to this article.

Reference was cited.