User talk:Koppadasao

ANI
I mentioned your addition to Tommy Robinson (activist) at ANI. A secondary source would be needed to describe a document as "fascist", and mentioning "Wikipedia admins" is undue, and original research, and unsuitable for an article. Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please cool down. If you have found this on Twitter only, it is unreliable sourcing. Like it or not, we are not going to report what has happened to Tommy Robinson until the so-called mainstream media reports it.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said, Wikipedia is a left wing propaganda site. At least now everyone interested in the case can see it is so--Koppadasao (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The situation is more complex than that. Anyone could make a document and post it somewhere, then copy it from there to an article here, claiming that the document was a scan of a court order. Clearly such activity cannot go unchecked: there needs to be a way to verify the actual document. Further, a primary source like that is unsuitable because it might have rescinded an hour later. That is why a secondary source is required. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)