User talk:Dutch91310

February 2009
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Sky83 (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply: the point is, you vandalised the article by changing her name. One of the basic Wikipedia rules is that you must be able to give a citation for new information. Clearly, this is not possible with the edit you made. Therefore, I took it out. If you want to contribute constructively, you are totally welcome to do so, everyone is, but you can't put random information in and expect people not to object. Personally, I think some of Jacqui Smith's actions are abominable to say the least, but vandalising her Wikipedia article was blatantly incorrect information is not the way to deal with those feelings. Best wishes. Sky83 (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to keep the info in, you must stop being opinionated in your wording. It borders on abusive how you phrased it. The man was banned for 'security' reasons, that's what was officially said, you can not say it was to appease people just because you feel that it was. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that you've possibly got a point, but you still can't say it. Put in info about the situation by all means, this is not what I am objecting to at all, but do not say she is doing a Chamberlain or appeasing people. Give the facts of the situation and avoid letting your feelings sneak in. Like I said, I don't like a lot of what the woman stands for myself, but I won't introduce false/biased information into her article because of it. Sky83 (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Listen, I'm not trying to be hard on this at all, but you just can't introduce that kind of bias into an article. Put the facts of the case in and let people draw their own conclusions. Like I've already said, I'm with you on your feelings about Smith, I don't like her policies or the way she handles things, and I do think you likely have a point with how you feel about this, but it doesn't make it suitable for Smith's article. This would be easy to solve if you just rewrote that section and took out the parts about Chamberlain and the appeasing comments. If it helps, here is an article about the situation from the BBC website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7885918.stm and I'm sure there are others out there as well. I don't want to get into an editing war about this again because I feel that you are genuinely correct in some of what you say, but this can't keep going on like this. Sky83 (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get into this anymore, I feel it is pointless, all I have asked of you is to correctly phrase the section to take out the bias, I don't want to keep having to delete the information since it is relevant, and rightly so. I will leave it for tonight, so please have a think about how to make it better. I sympathise with your point of view and even agree with it partially, but this can't continue. Sky83 (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already told you what the opinionated part is. Take out the mention of Chamberlain and the part where you say she is appeasing Muslims and it's generally okay. It's perfectly okay to mention the banning of the man, but you can't give opinions on why she did it, since this is not official and is very opinionated. And if you continue to revert my changes, you will be in violation of Wikipedia terms on the three revert rule. So perhaps it is best if this is just completely left for now, unless you are willing to rewrite the section tonight. Sky83 (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are in breach of the three revert rule and liable to be blocked. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Dutch91310. Let me echo Sky83's comments a couple places above. I think that while there is factual information that can go into the article, the gloss you put on it is not neutral. That violates one of our core polices - that articles need to have a neutral point of view. Also, as Sky83 mentioned, you are not allowed to exceed 3 reversions on the same page within 24 hours. This is called the three revert rule, and violating it is grounds for a block. Below I've attached a welcome message, please take a few minutes to check some of the links. I think you'll find that you'll understand where other editors are coming from a bit better. Take care, Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  22:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Dutch, once again the Neville Chamberlain thing is opinion and original research. Anyway, this is is really information relevant to the article on Wilders not to Ms Smith. Wikipedia isn't a news service and it's generally not a good idea to rush off to edit it every time a story develops that annoys you. --Lo2u (T • C) 23:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)