User talk:Braithwaite1

Talk page

Nadesalingam family asylum claims
The two sources you added back don't even discuss the people who are the subject of the article. If you want to add in material, it must be backed up by reliable sources, that's a requirement of WP:BLP. If it doesn't, it stays out. You can't just add some sources that talk about something else and make up your own original research. Deus et lex (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources are complimentary sources that address subject of asylum and that subjects relate to boat arrivals and migration, in which the article relates to. It adheres to the information related directly to the subject matter of irregular or illegal boat arrivals. It retains neutrality in addition to asylum seeker advocacy. The factually verified information in the sources defined by legislation back up the statement. It is not neutral to undo and onus will be on sources in which advocates deny advocacy for illegal immigration. The material is backed up by reliable sources that adhere to the verifiability and reliability guidelines of Wikipedia.Braithwaite1 (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't just repeat your edit summary (which makes no sense, and is wrong - the onus is on people adding material to put in sources and not the other way around, the sources you added don't back up the claim made in the article). The subject of the article is about a family. The two sources I deleted are a barrister's presentation and a Parliamentary report, neither of which discuss the family or have anything to do with them. They are not reliable sources according to Wikipedia and need to be removed. Deus et lex (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The onus would also be on people removing material to justify that the referenced and verified information does not adhere to the statement. Or add an additional sourced statement that denies the factually sourced information. The sources are not blacklisted by Wikipedia reliability guidelines. The Parliamentary report verifies the usage of the classifications related to the method of entry by the subject. The barrister's presentation refers to the specific legislations which also adhere to and verify the classifications used in relation to the subject and title of the article. Braithwaite1 (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the onus is not on people removing material to justify it. You need to comply with WP:BLP, which means that anything not supported by a reliable source can be removed. The source may not be "blacklisted" (whatever that means), but it's not a reliable source because it doesn't discuss the subject. Please go and read Wikipedia guidelines before posting comments like the ones above. You can't add those sources, so stop edit warring and stop adding them back in. Deus et lex (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have adjusted the classifications to under the Migration heading. "blacklisted" is in reference to the Reliable sources/Perennial sources list. The article title itself goes beyond the name of the family and into the topic of asylum claims. Not a mere biography. Braithwaite1 (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You haven't "adjusted" it, you added it in again and deleted your own material to support your own point of view. The article concerns people so WP:BLP applies. Please go and learn Wikipedia policy before editing material here, and stop edit warring and reverting people's edits. The barrister report and Parliamentary report are not reliable so they stay out. Deus et lex (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Parliamentary report is most certainly reliable as it is a government source. Will replace barrister's report to a government report which specifically refers to the immigration caseload that the family is part of (legacy caseload), that validates the classifications. Braithwaite1 (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop. You really don't understand, do you? Neither the report nor the barrister site discuss anything about the asylum claims of the family. You can't use them in this article. It's not a "reliable source" because it doesn't discuss the point you are trying to make. Adding them back is edit warring and is in violation of Wikipedia policies. Deus et lex (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

User warning for disruptive editing at Nadesalingam family asylum claims
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. . Deus et lex (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * There is no more editing that is considered disruptive. Am discussing the matter and providing appropriate sources directly relating to the family and asylum claims. Many reversions were by other users that did not provide explanations for their reversions. Braithwaite1 (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For the last time, the sources are NOT relevant to this article. If they don't discuss the family and the particular point the sentence is making, they don't go in the article. It's that simple. Neither the barrister article nor the Parliamentary report discuss the particular asylum classification of the family, so unless it does, it stays out of the article. If you continue to add it back into the article, it's disruptive and in violation of Wikipedia policy. Either edit the article properly or stop editing it at all. Deus et lex (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)