User talk:Justicejon

October 2023
Hello, I'm AgisdeSparte. I noticed that in this edit to John Bourn, 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. AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your note; I made the edit so as to correct the assumption of a wrong doing when in fact only policy was followed. Justicejon (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to John Bourn. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I am his son; the most reliable of sources. Justicejon (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Given your conflict of interest in the matter, you are really not the most reliable of sources. We require verification from published reliable sources, not the word of family members. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * With respect there is no conflict. I very much value Wikipedia but its content must be truthful. Justicejon (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Justicejon Thank you for your interest in contributing to Wikipedia. You've raised an important point regarding conflicts of interest, and it's a vital aspect of maintaining the neutrality and reliability of Wikipedia articles.
 * Being the son of someone directly involved in a topic can indeed create a potential conflict of interest when editing related articles. Wikipedia's guidelines strongly advise against editing pages where you have a personal or financial interest, as it can compromise the objectivity and credibility of the content.
 * To address this issue effectively, here are a couple of key considerations:
 * - Avoidance of Conflict of Interest: It's generally best to refrain from editing pages closely connected to you or your family to prevent any potential bias. Instead, you can contribute to other areas where you have no personal stake.
 * - Verifiability and Reliable Sources: Wikipedia relies on verifiable information from reliable, third-party sources. When editing, always use citations from reputable publications, books, or websites to support the information you add or change. Avoid using personal anecdotes or unpublished materials, as Wikipedia strictly prohibits original research.
 * Regarding the prohibition of original research, Wikipedia's core content policies are built upon the principles of verifiability and neutrality. Original research refers to the act of introducing new ideas, interpretations, or theories into articles that are not supported by existing, reliable sources. Wikipedia articles should summarize and cite established knowledge rather than presenting novel ideas.
 * In summary, while it's great to have contributors interested in improving Wikipedia, it's crucial to adhere to these guidelines to maintain the integrity and quality of the content. If you have any questions or need assistance with specific editing issues, feel free to ask for guidance on the article's talk page or through Wikipedia's community resources.
 * Thank you for your understanding, and I hope this helps you in your Wikipedia editing endeavors. AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the summary, however, I would hope to correct errors in order to improve the integrity of Wikipedia. I strongly believe there is nothing neutral or reputable about the sources of the criticisms and they should be removed. Justicejon (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources about the criticisms are litteraly The Spectator, The Guardian and The Independent AgisdeSparte (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Good morning, I respectfully ask that you make reference and provide the link to an article published in the Sunday Telegraph in early 2008 (Business) titled "Bourn away on a tide of ministerial spin" written by Liam Halligan. This is an important factual and relevant article. Many thanks. 193.117.222.178 (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)