User talk:Bluese7en

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style
 * Recent changes patrol
 * Anti-vandalism tools

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask on the WP: Help Desk, or ask your question and then place  before the question on this page. Again, welcome!--GoShow (...............) 04:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

October 2012
The edits you are making to Ben Harris-Quinney are not supported by any citation provided. Continuing to re-add claims that are not supported by any citation is vandalism and you are close to breaking the 3 revert rule, which is edit warring and could lead to you being blocked. If you can find verifiable, reliable sources for the claims, please add them. As it is, the material that is being removed is not supported by citations. Those that are given are unrelated to what is written in the article. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

3RR
Your recent editing history at Ben Harris-Quinney shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Tiller54 (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Citations do not support claims in article
As I and User:EardleyC have pointed out when we have removed the content, it is because it is not supported by the references provided. For example, the citation provided for "a column" in the Spanish newspaper links not to a column but to a single article, hence the edit. Also, the claim that Harris-Quinney "courted controversy in May 2012 when he challenged the decision of the UK Government to ban a debate on gay marriage from taking place at the QE2 Exhibition centre" is completely unsupported by the citation provided which only mentions Harris-Quinney in passing, to say that "Ben Harris-Quinney of the Bow Group... Cameron would have squirmed at Harris-Quinney's reminder that... he had voted to retain Section 28". There is nothing in the citation about either Harris-Quinney "courting controversy" himself or his "challenging" the government over the "banning of a debate". Finally, listing MPs and MEPs who may have contributed to an "alternative manifesto" published by a think tank is completely irrelevant. The Spectator citation simply says "Bernard Jenkin has an article in Crossbow magazine". This has nothing to do with Harris-Quinney and doesn't establish his notability. Working with people who are notable and then having them all listed here does not make Harris-Quinney himself notable.

Removing claims, such as the ones listed above, that are unsupported by the citations provided is not vandalism. Continuing to re-add them is. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you not interested in resolving this? Do you not understand why the claims you insert are being removed? They are not supported by verifiable citations and the ones that are provided are irrelevant. Please reply here rather than continuing to vandalise the page so we can come to a resolution. Tiller54 (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Continuing to re-add unsourced claims and deleting my comments on your talk page when I try and talk to you will not resolve this. Do you have any interest in a resolution here or are you interested only in trying to force your opinions onto Wikipedia, regardless of whether they are supported by verifiable citations or not? Tiller54 (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither of the "new sources" you have added back up the claim that Harris-Quinney "courted controversy". In fact, like the original "sources", they only mention him in passing. The Daily Mail article says simply "a line-up of speakers including Ben Harris-Quinney" and the Christian Concern article mentions that he spoke at a conference. The unsourced claim that he "courted controversy" is one that violates WP:BLP, which clearly states that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous". Claiming that Harris-Quinney "courted controversy" without sourcing it is in violation of this policy. Do you see why it is being removed, along with all the other unsourced claims? Please reply to me so we can resolve this. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am copying this from my talk page and posting it here in the hopes that you see it and understand what I am saying:


 * As I have explained on your talk page, the "new citations" do not support the claims, particularly the claim that he "courted controversy" at a gay marriage event. The new citations say nothing of any "controversy" he "courted" and in fact only mention him in passing. As WP:BLP clearly says: "Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." As I have already pointed out, removing unsourced claims is not vandalism but consistently re-adding it is and I am again asking that you stop re-adding unsourced claims. As WP:BLP says, "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." Trying to claim that I am vandalising an article because I am removing unsourced material in line with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons is patently false. Do you understand why I am removing the unsourced material? Please stop re-adding it. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you still persist in re-adding claims that we both know are false? There is nothing to support what you are re-adding so please desist from doing it. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)+
 * What exactly do you not understand? Your claims are not supported by any of the citations you have provided, that is why they are being removed. How much more simply do I need to explain this for you? Tiller54 (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)