User talk:MeltingDistrict

Conspiracy theorists
Hi, @MeltingDistrictMeltingDistrict. The Lucy Letby case is not closed. She can, and likely will, appeal.So the analogy with these nutty conspiracy theorists is a bit weak. If we were now at the “long after the case is closed” stage, The Telegraph would not have published that article. Richard Gill (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, Richard. It's a shame The Telegraph wrote that then isn't it, because we don't get to decide to censor information on Wikipedia if we don't like it, we just have to report what the secondary sources say, like it or not. Sorry! MeltingDistrict (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * But you didn’t write what the Telegraph said. You twisted what the Telegraph said. Seems you have an agenda. You are breaking a number of Wikipedia rules. Richard Gill (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You have a conflict of interest, you are strongly discouraged to edit in such a way. Conflict of Interest says: "If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly. Requests for updates to an article about yourself or someone with whom you have a personal connection can be made on the article's talk page by following the instructions at WP:COIREQ". I'd be very careful about reverting other editors' edits on a page about yourself, as you have been doing. MeltingDistrict (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have alerted Wikipedia editors to your vandalism, because indeed I should not touch the article about myself (a living person) till I’m no longer a living person. Richard Gill (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have read that comment three times and still don't understand what its supposed to mean. MeltingDistrict (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No sense of humour? Richard Gill (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have an agenda? You ought to remain from making such assumptive comments, as you should be commenting on content, not on the contributor. You are breaking a number of Wikipedia rules. MeltingDistrict (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You are just a troll. Richard Gill (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I apologise for that comment. Richard Gill (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

You are a Wikipedia editor with one single topic: Lucy Letby. I suggest you stick to that page. You will have a lot of work cut out for you when the appeal starts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MeltingDistrict Richard Gill (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Here’s a suggestion for you: add a sentence to the article about me saying that “Gill is currently one of a number of scientists advocating for an appeal and a retrial of Lucy Letby.” The Telegraph article could be cited. Richard Gill (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality
I am going to reach out to you here, because I don't want to go running to drama boards, but I have to say I am concerned that you do not appear to be approaching pages that have a connection with Richard Gill from a neutral point of view. We both are aware that you have history with him, and you might like to consider taking a step back and editing other pages about which you have less strong views. Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I am sure you have a lot to offer, but WP:NPOV is a core policy. I know you will wish to disagree with me, but please take this in the spirit it is meant - that you could have a lot to offer, but not on these articles. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Look mate, I am not going to stop editing on the Lucia de Berk page just because you don't want me to. You feel I am non-neutral, I don't think you are neutral. The feeling is mutual. I suggest you approach me therefore as an equal editor or don't bother at all MeltingDistrict (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also as I have just drawn your attention to WP:ONUS and as the above contentious topics warning has been brought to your attention, I would gently suggest you self revert this . Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You know what, I will self-revert it, to prove to you that I agree with ONUS. I hope you will take this gesture and follow ONUS likewise by not re-instating your content without a consensus. MeltingDistrict (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Look, these are tendentious: . You know there is no problem with those. I think this falls foul of WP:POINT. Again, requesting you self revert. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed those only because I have concerns about their non-neutral wording and the fact that they were included by a COI editor. If you think there is good justification for the content being re-added, you can seek a consensus on talk. I am not trying to make any "point". MeltingDistrict (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * They were inserted by me this week. I rewrote and sourced them based on the source. Those are my words you removed. And now you are adding in character assassination stuff again. Look, I came here to reach out to you. It is clear you don't have much experience with BLPs, and that is fine, but please have a read of the guidance and a think about what you are doing, and why. I'll leave it there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023
Your recent editing history at Lucia de Berk shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Your reverts can be grouped but this still constitutes your third revert within 24 hours:  Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding Your edits relating to Richard Gill. The thread is MeltingDistrict. The discussion is about the topic MeltingDistrict. Thank you. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

ANI
It's WP:REDACT not WP:TPO but in any case, both apply to ANI and not just talk pages. In fact, it especially applies there because the sense of the discussion has more significant consequences. DeCausa (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well okay fine, I won't touch the previous entries I've made. MeltingDistrict (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)