User talk:David Henesy121

Blocked from editing.
In respect of your copy right policy; I draw your attention to the entry I made:-

However, during her time at the PHSO, it should be noted that there was a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction from complainants regarding the handling of complaints. Much of this was hidden from the public through the PHSO having almost full discretion on what information was published & on what it reported to the Quality Care Commission who had oversight, but without any powers, over the PHSO. Ultimately she was forced to resign though the chair Robert Behrens who came across from the Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) ombudsman, is himself not without similar criticisms.

and:-

It should be noted that when Rob Behrens was in charge of the OIA, there was a great deal of dissatisfaction from complainants regarding his handling of issues such as transparency, impartiality leading to a strong sense of bias towards the institutions in which the OIA was supposed to be independent of. This dissatisfaction has followed him across to the PHSO, where similar criticisms have been made by, once again, multiple complainants. In his role at the OIA and the PHSO, Behrens has used his unfettered discretion to control the narrative, the data and the publications of what both organisations do. In contrast, complainants who cannot get their concerns made publicly visible through the OIA or PHSO websites, publish else where. The general consensus from both groups is that the Ombudsman takes at face value (i.e., without any forensic investigation or analysis) the version given to them by the organisation, whilst undermining complainants themselves as well as their complaints. Evidence supporting complaints go missing, excessive time is taken to bring a complaint to a conclusion so that the complainants options to pursue a civil action are timed out leaving them with no options left open to them. Conclusions result from investigations which are done in secrecy and do not follow the weight of the evidence by where evidence is selectively chosen, which provides a rationale, albeit often in coherent, that leads to supporting the institution involved, whilst repeatedly ignoring strong evidence of wrong doing and cover-ups. Robert Behrens has been rewarded for overseeing this pattern of conduct by receiving his CBE for services to education. You can see that there are two source references to the short additional information that I added and fully cover all the comments within the paragraph.

Given that I am unclear how I have violated the Copyright policy. Also, your policy states "Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warning may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems. Contributors who have extensively violated copyright policy by uploading many copyrighted files or placing copyrighted text into numerous articles may be blocked without warning for the protection of the project." I have never been warned or advised about my edits before and on this occasion I used published material and referenced it. I believed that my edits here make an important contribution to an area of complaint systems and the Chief executives given that ordinarily these pages are developed from a one sided perspective only.

In addition, in respect of the BLP violation. I thought that sourcing information in the public domain I am not attacking that person in anyway. However, having looked at you policy and in particular:- " We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." I can appreciate that perhaps I did not follow this format correctly, albeit unintentionally, though once again, it has not been a persistent issue. This is the first time I have experienced being blocked and have never benefitted from a warning in the past. I would like to continue to contribute to Wikipedia and perhaps I should simply stay away from writing about any living person at all. If I do I will follow the policy far more closely now that I can recognise that my original view of the policy was less detailed than I had assumed.