User talk:Bobbyzulu

July 2018
Hello, I'm Toohool. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Betfair, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Toohool (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please refer to our policy on reliable sources. Some other person's statements on Twitter are not an acceptable source for facts about Betfair. It would need to be cited to a secondary source such as a newspaper or magazine. Toohool (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi the statement was made by him on his own twitter account. If you actually look at the cited material it is all there. Twitter is a verifiable source.

Bobbyzulu (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that you continue to restore disputed content that is not supported by reliable sources (please click and read this link! A blog is not a reliable source and social media accounts rarely meet the requirements). If the material you wish to add is notable enough for inclusion it will have been reported in sources meeting the noted criteria.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

If you read the cited source article you will see that the material is verified and fact checked to a high standard. The actual quote attributed to Ragonajec comes from his own twitter feed and is reproduced. You would have to be intent on censoring it not to accept that it does meet the standard for inclusion. I suggest that you let it stay and let others be the judge as your agenda until you address my points is opaque. Bobbyzulu (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You cannot simply wish a reliable source into being by insisting it is one. Blogs do not meet our reliable sourcing criteria. If you believe that an exception needs to be made in this case then you need to go to the reliable sources noticeboard and get consensus that it can be used in this instance to support the inclusion of the material and the quote. edit warring against multiple editors to restore disputed content without consensus when you are attributing a quote to a living person will very likely lead to a block of your account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The blog is a collation of materials that verify the quote. You and your confederate Toohoo have now expunged a link to a Daily Mail article about Zeljkp Ranogajec as well. The Daily Mail is not a blog is it. You are both simply acting as censors (presumably for reward somewhere down the line). You are damaging the whole wikipedia concept by your actions.Bobbyzulu (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail is not a reliable source, and I clearly noted the community consensus for not using it in my edit summary. You are a new editor without a clue as to how Wikipedia works, nor do you seem keen on educating yourself based on the feedback provided by more seasoned editors and admins who actually do have a clue. If fabricating conspiracy theories regarding other editors' motives makes you feel better then knock yourself out, it ultimately only reflects poorly on you, but you cannot continue to violate our policies because you are unwilling or unable to comprehend them. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Mail article is completely factual derived from verified material ie. photographs. How on this earth can you claim that as unreliable? Please do not patronise me and deal with the points that I have raised. Thus far a well written longstanding blog is not up to scratch and nor is the Daily Mail!. OK give me one example of a reliable source (according to your interpretation) that has been cited in the Zeljko Ranogajec wiki? Bobbyzulu (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you read WP:DAILYMAIL and the consensus that it does not meet reliable sourcing criteria? Did you read WP:RS, which I've linked to multiple times? If you have, and you still don't understand how blogs and gossip rags are not reliable sources, then I can't help you. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

"Blogs and gossip rags" - So you are conflating the two to make them one. That's a really good way to make your point is it? With all due respect I can only see that your motive is to protect both Betfair and Mr Ragonajec from plain and simple facts. Mr Ragonajec made the statement attributed to him of that there is absolutely no doubt. Furthermore the Daily Mail faithfully reproduced and fairly commented on the evidence of his own photographs which clearly show that he has an extravagant lifestyle. For reasons that only you would know you have gone out of your way to censor all of this. Perhaps you might be so kind as to share with us what your motivation is? Failing that are you know going to undo every citation to the Daily Mail on Wikipedia? Bobbyzulu (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have provided you with all the information, policies and guidelines that demonstrate the Wikipedia community's consensus regarding the websites you are trying to use as sources. If, after reading trough all of the material provided, you still cannot understand why your edits are unacceptable then there is nothing further I can do to help you. You can lead a horse to water, as they say. I won't be responding to any further questions from you as your refusal to listen to what is being explained repeatedly is tiresome.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

There is not a blanket ban in place on Wikipedia for citing either verified tweets or the Daily Mail newspaper. I have taken the trouble to do my research and if I am mistaken would you be so kind as to point me to the precise text that confirms your assertion. Otherwise you should cease from censoring material that is both truthful and relevant. Many thanks in anticipation Bobbyzulu (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)