User talk:NZ researcher

Peter Ellis articles.
Edits to these articles with other than a neutral point of view will be reverted. Obviously you are have a view on this case but Wikipedia is not a place for that to be expressed. The Charter of Wikipedia is that articles must be neutral and just about every edit you make is the opposite of that. If you do not stop then it is possible that eventually you may be banned from the forum. - SimonLyall 23:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Your signature
It looks like your signature has the wrong case for the letter R. It should link to your (currently empty) user page, but instead it's linking to User:NZ Researcher, and there is no account by that name. It's also valid to set your signature to link directly to your talk page, as I do.-gadfium 03:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Multiple user accounts
Hi, I just noticed that there seems to be another account (User:Nz researcher) with a very similar name to this one. Given that both seem to making similar edits to the Thomas Eichelbaum article, this leads me to think you might have two accounts. If so, you might like to read Sock puppetry, and consider using one of the tags described there. I'll post a similar message on the other account, but you'd only need to tag one of them.

Just to be clear, I'm not accusing you of doing anything wrong. (Given the similarities in the account names, it seems pretty obvious there was no intent of using them for sock puppetry.) I'm just suggesting a way of protecting yourself from any possible future accusations. -- Avenue 11:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, I do have two accounts although I have no idea how that happened. I tried entering my password and was suprised that it didn't work! 22:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)(User:Nz researcher)


 * Another reason for tagging your accounts is to tell people which is your primary account, so they will know which talk page is usually the best place to communicate with you. -- Avenue 07:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't have a primary account and any discussion can take place on the discussion page. 20:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC) )(User:Nz researcher)

Two points on the Ellis article problems
Firstly, I hope that you aren't put of Wikipedia by the process surrounding the Peter Ellis article. Things can get nasty sometimes over controversial topics (and sadly over some non-controversial things too). But, I also recommend you step back a little and think about whether the article does provide a neutral point of view. NPOV is much more than just letting the facts speak for themselves, it also means having equal weighting. Currently, the Peter Ellis clear allows the facts to speak (there is no "and this means he's innocent" statements). But, the question is over equal weighting. Considering a jury found Ellis guilty, there needs to be reasons.

Just have a think about it, it serves no ones interests to have a fight over the article. --Midnighttonight 21:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "As has been said many times, this case is more about moral panic and hysteria than actual evidence." Except for many people it is not.  For many people it is about child abuse and evidence which points to that, it just happened to occur at the same time as a moral panic and hysteria.  (p.s. please remember to sign your comments with --~ ).  And your POV is coming out in your edits --Midnighttonight 22:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)