User talk:Ben bfc 1986

March 2021
Hello, I'm FDW777. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Stephanie Peacock, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you!

See WP:TWITTER, not an acceptable reference. FDW777 (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Stephanie Peacock. Thank you.

Please stop attempting to create some kind of controversy regarding a single tweet. FDW777 (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Apologies - I noticed your earlier message and assumed that the earlier addition had not been saved, not removed, hence the second attempt to edit the page. The Tweet itself is of public interest, given it was posted publicly by the MP herself. This is not an attempt to create controversy, but to place on record the facts around what happened. There is a clear reference to information the subject put in the public domain herself. I'm not sure how this breaches the policy on how we write about biographies. Ben bfc 1986 (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "Peacock caused a backlash from constituents on twitter in 2019" is a "controversy" completely unsupported by the alleged existence of a deleted tweet. FDW777 (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

People have a right to know when their elected representatives make misjudged remarks. It is a fact that these comments were made, by the subject of the article, and were then removed 7 hours after. You were the one that used the word 'controversy', not me. I merely said that the comments caused a backlash, which led to the tweet being deleted, this is supported by independently collated information from Politwoops, a website supported by the Open State Foundation. This is not Communist China - it is to others to view the evidence and make a judgement as to whether they feel it was controversial or not. Ben bfc 1986 (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I suggest grinding your axe elsewhere, since there is no evidence of any "backlash". FDW777 (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, it did happen, but fine, I'll take your point on that, and will amend to reflect Ben bfc 1986 (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Stephanie Peacock have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Stephanie Peacock was changed by Ben bfc 1986 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.857492 on 2021-03-22T22:04:31+00:00

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page. FDW777 (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you please explain to me, quite clearly, how the information I added a. violates Wikipedia's policy, and b. is controversial? Ben bfc 1986 (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You are not adding negative information to the article because you, for some unknown reason, object to something she said on Twitter. So go and grind your axe elsewhere. FDW777 (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry but this absolutely is not the case. Your view is that this is negative information - it is factually what happened. Please explain to me how the information I have attempted to add violate's Wikipedia's policy and how it is controversial? Ben bfc 1986 (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)