User talk:Floccsy

Welcome!
Hi Floccsy! I noticed your contributions to Andrew Percy&#32;and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Mattythewhite (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Jake Berry
Hello new user the reason why I removed that paragraph from Jake Berry is because it was duplicated across many articles; that is the opposite of what an encyclopedia is. Do you understand how that is unencyclopedic? Also, can you explain how that paragraph is quintessential to include in an encyclopedia article? Thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello PerpetuityGrat, as someone who has written a PhD thesis that included a chapter on what it means to be an encyclopaedia, no, I do not see how it is unencyclopaedic: it is a genre that has never relied on original writing, and a fabricated wikipedia entry would likely be removed under that remit. On the topic of how that paragraph is essential to an encyclopaedia: what a public representative does in their office to represent the public is useful in understanding how they have represented the public in their role as a public representative. A suitable alternative might be to insert a table of Jake Berry's voting record on his page, and do the same with all other MPs. However, to avoid a data overload, this paragraph would still be required to provide the necessary context and to explain a far reaching decision he made in his role as a public representative.
 * Good for you for having a PhD and covering a chapter in your thesis, but that doesn't mean we can breach Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia does differ from other encyclopedias. A suitable alternative would not be to insert a table of Berry's voting record. Wikipedia is not a repository of votes. This might help explain this: What Wikipedia is not. I totally don't disagree with you on the fact that "public representative does in their office to represent the public is useful in understanding how they have represented the public in their role as a public representative," but that doesn't mean that an Wikipedia article ought to include every single vote. Every vote is relevant to some individual, no? Right. But again, that doesn't mean we include a synopsis on every single vote, regardless of whichever office is held. That doesn't make them relevant.
 * Being investigated by police, his majority, a few sponsored bills, being appointed to ministerships, where he stands on Brexit—I obviously didn't remove any of those because those items are relevant and will still very likely continue to be relevant and notable in ten year's time.
 * I would also recommend not revealing personal details on Wikipedia that divulge your personal biographical information, and would recommend removing that link. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you could point to the relevant section of the What Wikipedia is not page, I would appreciate it. Until such time, a vote that affects multiple lives and has remained relevant in his role as a public representative putting the health of the public at risk does fall within Wikipedia's guidelines. Following your logic, though, wikipedia both is an encyclopaedia and is not one, dependent upon your personal preferences at the time.
 * , perhaps I'm not explaining Wikipedia's policies properly, or you aren't reading what I included. I'm going to move the discussion to the article talk page. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)