User talk:NigelPScott

Welcome!

 * }

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/NigelPScott for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Logan Talk Contributions 15:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

A statement from me: I am not a 'sock puppet'. I post under my real name, unlike most people, as far as I can tell. I do not have time to engage in edit wars of attrition but I have knowledge and would like to be able to make suggestions on talk pages. I have not posted under any other identity. NigelPScott (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I'm referring to this edit Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you.TMCk (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nigel, I noticed your edit which was undone. There should be no mystery about why it was removed; calling other editors "wankers" contravenes our rule against personal attacks. Any repetition of this is likely to result in loss of editing privileges. Everybody here was new once, so I don't hold this against you, but you need to be very clear that you can't talk to people that way. --John (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi John, Thanks for your message. I agree, I am not au fait with Wiki etiquette but I did not call anyone specific a wanker so there was no personal attack. I am aware that it is bad form to criticise individuals but I stand by my accusation that the page is being controlled by editors who remove, intimidate, ignore or block anyone who attempts to introduce facts that do not chime with their view of the case, regardless of whether they can be supported by reliable sources or not. As Jimbo Wales has said, we are not trying to retry the case here, but there seems to be a presumption that because the prosecution stated something in the first trial and because that trial resulted in a guilty verdict, these statements cannot be challenged through Wikipedia pages even when they are demonstrably wrong and have been demolished in the re trial and this has been reported by reliable sources. Right now, the page is dominated by a viewpoint that is fast being overtaken by events and more and more reliable sources are picking up on this. Many of the so-called reliable sources that are currently used e.g. The Times from three years ago, reported leaks from the prosecution that were never even put to the court, let alone proved. I hope Wikipedia can still be helped to catch up, but I am not optimistic. Best wishes, Nigel NigelPScott (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Status re guilt etc.
In answer to your claim that I have to say that you are unlikely to be blocked for answering my questions, nor would any other editor. Here are again. I think that they are reasonable, and I (and others) have been asking editors who have asserted similar points (without any sources to back them up) the same questions for some time now. Here is of it, if you would prefer to answer him rather than me. Here is me.

This would indeed make a great difference to the article, so please, if you want to make these claims, show us where the evidence for the claims can be found. pablo 19:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding pablo. I have been busy today but I am checking evidence and will report back soon.  NigelPScott (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If you can find some sources for that claim that would be great and would put month long discussions about it finally to rest and we can add something about it to the article. Thanks for looking into it, TMCk (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Proxying edits is not allowed
Proxying edits for blocked users is not allowed. Please do not do it again. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

PhanuelB
You may not appeal at this point for Phanuel. You have been reverted. Please do not do that again. The only route available to him is appealing to ArbCom.

You may be blocked for posting on behalf of a blocked user so please don't do it. Thank you, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  17:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, you are reminded not to proxy for a blocked user, or your editing privileges will, in due course, be removed.  Super Mario  Man  23:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

January 2016
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. Please do not sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on article talk pages or project pages such as the Village Pump. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article? Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you (talk) for your advice. It is appreciated.  I am not sure whether you will see this.  I am not very familiar with the technical stuff. NigelPScott (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw it, since this page has been on my watchlist since I posted the message above. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)