User talk:GlennBall

October 2022
Hello, I'm Adakiko. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Spicerhaart seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

December 2022
Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that in this edit to Spicerhaart, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages, as you did to Spicerhaart. This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Please could you explain 'misleading summaries'? I have provided additional context to information on the Spicerhaart page, and have also provided external links to back up this information. No information was removed from the page regarding the history of Spicerhaart. GlennBall (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, please could you explain the 'misleading summaries' and explain how the edits I am trying to upload are misleading. As explained, I have NOT removed any information on the history of Spicerhaart, but have simply provided ADDITIONAL information, as well as links to external articles confirming and highlighting the context of the information provided. I look forward to your quick reply. GlennBall (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, please could you explain the 'misleading summaries' and explain how the edits I am trying to upload are misleading. As explained, I have NOT removed any information on the history of Spicerhaart, but have simply provided ADDITIONAL information, as well as links to external articles confirming and highlighting the context of the information provided. I look forward to your quick reply. GlennBall (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm still waiting for your response. You manage to react immediately to any edits on the Spicerhaart page but seem to be refusing to reply to my request for further information? If you are either unable or unwilling to respond to me I will have to report this to the Wiki admins. I would like a clear response regarding what are 'misleading summaries'. GlennBall (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Adakiko, any update on the information request above? Appreciate your help. GlennBall (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not always online.
 * You removed critical content sourced by The Guardian which was not explained in your last wp:ES. In the previous removal, you remove The Guardian source calling it "unreliable". See WP:RSP. You added a Daily Mail article as a source which is categorized as not wp:RS - WP:DAILYMAIL.
 * Are you associated with Spicerhaart?
 * If you have questions, please ask at the wp:Teahouse. Adakiko (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Spicerhaart, you may be blocked from editing. Adakiko (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Please explain 'disruptive editing'. I am not being disruptive, I am trying to provide a more accurate and unbiased overview of Spicerhaart. The current edit is malicious and biased. In your previous message to me, you mentioned I should not have removed critical content, this remained in my newest edit (which you have once again overwritten). You also mentioned the use of a Daily Mail article which should not have been included; this was excluded in my most recent edit. On 'your' edit 'you' have included factually incorrect information (Spicerhaart are no longer in a legal battle with Tesco...they 'were' in a legal battle with Tesco...there is a difference between 'is' and 'were'...this is outdated and factually incorrect information. The Spicerhaart / Tesco legal battle ended in 2014...this is easy to find with a very simple Google search)...and 'you' have also 'only' provided a biased opinion on other linked articles. I 'have' included reference to the criticism of the Spicerhaart Group regarding their furlough decision, and 'have' kept the 'critical content' link to the Guardian article. In the current edit it also clearly states their furlough decision was 'not in compliance with employment law' - there is no reference to which law is being referred to here (if it is true provide reference, if it is untrue it is liable). It is becoming obvious that you have a personal vendetta against Spicerhaart and want ownership of this page, despite Wikipedia being an open collaboration source of information. You appear unwilling to collaborate on this, unlike myself. Perhaps this issue needs to go to mediation if you are unwilling to collaborate here. GlennBall (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)