User talk:Harlequin kite

March 2016
Hello, I'm Meters. 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 Jilly Cooper 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. Meters (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ashley Byrne, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Meters (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Ashley Byrne. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The article has been tagged for having no sources, you've been warned for adding material with no sources, and you admit that you have made untrue additions. If you want it in the article provide a reliable source. It's not up to me or any other editor to source your additions for you. Meters (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Meters,

The comment about Ashley Byrne being a member of the Nations and Regions conference board is true. After you removed my joke comment about conjuring tricks I was trying to see if you would also remove a factually correct comment which you did. I have tried to find a source for the board membership online but at the moment the Salford University site doesn't display that information.



Also there is a problem of bias in how the Jilly Cooper info displays on search engines. Under education it names her public school whereas for someone like Owen Jones who is working class it names their university. So please don't try to tell me I am launching my opinions and Wikipedia is neutral. unsigned2


 * Please read WP:No Personal Attacks to see why I removed part of your post. I've already explained the Ashley Byrne removal in the above warning, and on the article's talk page. I'm not going to cover it a third time.
 * Your Jilly Cooper edit "British people only mention the name of a person's school if they are a member of the upper class." is nothing but your opinion, and had no place in the article. Amusingly, to a certain extent it is contradicted by the cited source on her education, since it actually calls her family middle class, rather than upper class. Wikipedia does not have any rules stopping you (or anyone else) from adding lower level schools to any biographical articles. Use reliable sources and go ahead. Meters (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Harlequin kite. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Meters (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you ignored my suggestion to read WP:NPA I've given you a formal warning this time. Meters (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Harlequin kite, Wikipedia does not have a position called moderator. All users can issue warnings for inappropriate behaviour. I agree some of your edits have been inappropriate. Administrators can block users. Meters is not, and has not claimed to be, an administrator. I suspect your Bing issue is not caused by Wikipedia but by the Bing feature described at Template:HD/Bing. However, I don't see this feature when I use Bing, maybe because I'm in Denmark. Regardless of why you think a Bing page displays something, is a completely inappropriate reaction to it. A sentence like that makes no sense in a biography in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia has strict rules about Biographies of living persons. We have five million articles including hundreds of thousands of biographies. Many of them don't live up to our standards but that does not make it OK to add unsourced material to a biography. Verifiability says: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." You admit yourself that you cannot find an online source so even if another editor looked for one, which they are not required to do, it might be difficult. Removing the unsourced statement is a perfectly valid reaction, especially when the statement was made by somebody who had just admitted to adding joke material to the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, fair comment. I may come back and change the article if and when I can find a source. As I was saying on the tree house (?) forum I will read the guidelines /rules before I post again. Thankyou.