User talk:John Dannowicz

Andrew Marr
The number of hits on Google for the two names are irrelevant, as you will have realised after reading the two Wikipedia articles I cited. Incidentally, any comments following articles which are RS are not valid because of the moderation issue, as you will also have discovered. Philip Cross (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Response:

I feel that this is not really a valid argument or rather a baseless claim. The point of Wikipedia is to provide facts. As this is common knowledge with websites which could be verified, I see no reason why this should be covered up.Of course, unless this conflicts someone's interest :) John Dannowicz (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2012 (BWT)


 * I have tried to point you in the direction of Wikipedia's policy in this area, personal opinions are not relevant here. As I have no connection whatsoever with Andrew Marr, I don't know what you mean by "unless this conflicts someone's interest :)" Philip Cross (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * When Marr agreed to lift the injunction, he did not agree to name the woman involved. This would have led to publicity for the woman and child that was unnecessary. Wikipedia is not a tabloid news source, and does not include information in BLP articles if it is not necessary for an understanding of the subject (like Philip Cross, I am not a PR agent, please assume good faith).-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)