User talk:Rjgashmore

July 2023
Hello, I'm David Gerard. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. We do not use the Daily Mail as a source for contentious third-party claims about living persons. David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi David, thank you for your views on the edit. The Daily Mail is a reliable source, as it’s a national newspaper in the UK that operates under the law and press code. It has far more regulation than Wikipedia, for example.
 * All the information I provided in my edit was accurate, including the reference to ITV. Why was that also removed?
 * How do I challenge your decision please? Is there a process?
 * Also as an aside I’m fascinated by your job, I’m a Jornalist for a British national newspaper, would you like to do an interview about your role? Rjgashmore (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You might think that, but there were not one but two general RFCs that determined that the Daily Mail was so consistently fraudulent and given to fabrication that it was unusable on Wikipedia. See WP:DAILYMAIL and you can also see a link to the fifty-odd discussions that led to this. If you want to change it, you'd need to go to WP:RSN, but you would need a new and pretty convincing argument to swing it - David Gerard (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you David. With all due respect, it’s not what I think, the newspaper does operate under UK law and the press code. I’d be interested to know if all UK national newspapers/ news organisations are subject to this, if not, I’d like to know why, because it could be argued singling out one news organisation that operates under the same constraints as others, could suggest some political bias on behalf of moderators and wiki itself. I’m not implying this, but it’s important decisions are impartial and not motivated by personal views. Every news organisation makes errors, that’s why they publish corrections and are subject to the law, for example on defamation. I cited an article that gave evidence of the events, in both cases. As it stands I will amend the edit with other citations. Thank you for the information for appealing your decision. And lastly, just to say, I appreciate the work you do, Wiki is an amazing resource and while I disagree with your ruling here, I’m grateful for the work you and others do to maintain it. Thank you. Rjgashmore (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)