User talk:Bimbapboo

April 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Andewz111 (typo intended) 18:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Tom Watson (politician) has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://charonqc.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/law-review-non-jury-tials-tom-watson-mp-responds-on-libel-reform-dangerous-orange-juice-on-the-streets-of-london-shock/. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Tom Watson (politician), please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

edit test

Blocked
You have been blocked as a disruptive single-purpose account and for violations of our policy on biographies of living people. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

JzG blocked me for my attempted edits of Tom Watson's Biog. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Watson_%28politician%29

How can I be called a SPA when ive only been trying to edit on Wikapedia for 70 minutes?

Please clarify how many subjects an editor is supposed to intelligently discuss in 70 mins to prevent being blocked?

re your Andewz111 18:55 issues, I misuderstood your policy  on living people in that I thought that so long as there was  reference on the internet to a situation then reporting it was fine.

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.”

re the18.59 xbot issue Its unfortunate that XLinkBot (talk) 18:59 don’t accept Bimbapboo  reference to a blog commenting about Tom Watson that I  tried to edit in in good faith  “(He Tom Watson ) has also recently opposed Libel Costs reform”.

This is demonstrated by amongst many other articles on the web including the following two:

1.Last week, it was assumed that Straw's plans (re: new libel law) would go through easily. But this did not take into account the small number of MPs nursing resentments over the way the media have treated them during the expenses scandal. Several of them, led by Tom Watson, a close ally of Gordon Brown, have won defamation cases against newspapers. They belong to the old school that sees the fourth estate as a feral beast needing to be tamed, rather than understanding the extent to which robust investigative journalism and fair comment have been silenced in recent years. They also ignore the significant impact of costs on NGOs investigating corruption, as well as on scientists, academics, publishers and authors. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/05/libel-reform-simon-singh

2. Labour rebels attempted to block the proposed reform of Englands libel laws last night….Labour MP’s Tom Watson, Chris Mullin, Peter Killfoyle and Jim Sheridan all defied Mr Straw to oppose the plans http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262426/Rebel-Labour-MPs-vote-Jack-Straws-libel-law-reforms.html

Off2riorob (talk) 19:34 appears to be commenting on the same points as made by Andewz111 and XLinkBot but I dont know since Off2riorob has not specified what the issue was.

So I’m surprised you consider it reasonable to say i've received & ignored multiple warnings, when it looks like i got 2 warning i didn’t see before you blocked me after 70 minute use.

I made a number of other points that were referenced to major uk newssources and Tom Watsons own website, that you undid without saying why, when they represent " significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

Eg.

Tom Watson, wants to “crack open westminsters lobby cartel” *1 and complains about entertainment companies unprecedented and relentless lobby around the Digital Economy Bill *2, whilst lobbying for isp’s * 3 , a member of apcomms MP’s lobby group *4, which is organised by telecoms lobbyists political-intelligence *5

1 Tom Watson: Crack open the lobby cartel, rip up the rules, and let a new era of accountability begin http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/tom-watson-crack-open-the-lobby-cartel-rip-up-the-rules-and-let-a-new-era-of-accountability-begin-1711569.html

In considering how to bring Parliament up to date, the new Speaker should make radical changes to the lobby system, argues someone who resigned from the Government earlier this month

2. Digital Economy Bill – unprecedented and relentless lobby around the Digital Economy Bill.

http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2010/02/digital-economy-bill-unprecedented-lobbying-operation/

February 23rd, 2010 | The entertainment industry continues an unprecedented and relentless lobby around the Digital Economy Bill. The campaigns around this Bill really are a story of David and Goliath. If you counted the number of people who are working full time to bounce this Bill through the Commons on behalf of big publishing interests I bet it would run into three figures. Those that want to protect the Internet connections of the nation’s youth? Probably one or two.

Being lobbied by people you revere, respect and admire is a tricky thing. I’ve just openend this letter from some big characters in my life. It shows how co-ordinated and determined the entertainment industry is:

3. Illicit Filesharing – Ben Bradshaw http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/illicit-filesharing-ben-bradshaw/

Q25 Mr Watson: Perhaps we can explore what a tier one tribunal is later on. I want to test you a little more on this. Have you estimated the cost of implementing the system to suspend file sharers for industry? If so, can you say what that is? Mr Bradshaw: I would imagine we would do so in the regulatory impact assessment that we will be publishing alongside the bill. I know you have a strong record of speaking out on one side of this argument – this is not meant pejoratively – but there are very strong arguments on the other side, the cost of doing nothing to the music industry alone in this country is estimated at about £200 million. Q26 Mr Watson: Whose estimate is that? Mr Bradshaw: That is the industry’s estimate. It is an estimate that I have not seen challenged by anyone in any serious way. You will be aware that it is not just the film industry that is concerned about illegal file sharing, it is the music industry, it is all of our creative sectors. This is a problem which governments all over the world are grappling with.

4. He is a member of the All Party Internet Group.

http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Tom_Watson_MP

The apComms group exists to provide a discussion forum between the communications industry and Parliamentarians for the mutual benefit of both parties. http://www.apcomms.org.uk/ Accordingly, the group considers all communication issues as they affect society informing current Parliamentary debate through meetings, informal receptions and reports. The group is open to all Parliamentarians in both the House of Commons and House of Lords. Contact If you require further information on future apComms activities or would like to raise an issue with the Group then please e-mail the Secretariat via admin@apcomms.org.uk or contact Jonathan Williams on 0207 340 8730


 * 5 http://www.political-intelligence.com/page/show/category/Our%20Team/office/London/name/Jonathan+Williams

https://nodpi.org/forum/index.php?topic=1382.0 Who are apComms? Looking at the whois information for apcomms.org.uk http://www.robtex.com/dns/apcomms.org.uk.html, it is registered by an organisation called Political Intelligence. Their web site http://www.political-intelligence.com/ shows them to be political lobbyists and as such, they would be working on behalf of paid clients.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.


 * The article is not "Tom Watson's blog" it is a Wikipedia article. Your edits were in violation of our policy on biographies of living people. You were contacted several times about this, via this talk page, and must have seen the orange bar come up, but you carried on anyway.  A "single purpose account" accurately describes you here; I have no problem unblocking you but only if you undertake to leave that particular article alone. We have a couple of million others you could be working on. Guy (Help!)

Can you please clarify what "article" you refer to in above pargrapgh?

I made a number of edits and you seem to have indiscriminately deleted them all.

I dont remember seeing the orange bar come up, and it was only later when i realised that none of my ammends had been added, did i come back to the talk page to see what was happening... as your aware this was my first attempt at editing, and you credit me with more experience of wiki procedure than i have.

. Im sorry if one of my links was considered dodgy, but their was a lot of well researched and referenced material with links to the biggest and most credible newspapers in the uk. and to uk goverment sources there that i tried to add, and for you to delete it all because you didnt like one reference seems very unreasonable to me.

Can you please answer my question - how many articles must a new editor have to edit in ones first 70mins on Wikipeadia for a potential editor not to be considered a SPA?

Im sure I could find other articles to edit, but if my first expierence is that no edits are allowed of a subject im greatly interested in, and im providing new valid info, that deleted as a batch its not encouraging. It looks like no critiscm is allowed of Tom Watson.
 * No criticism of anyone is allowed on Wikipedia; we only publish neutral, factual information, not opinions. No praise of anyone is allowed, either.  Just simple, clear facts.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)