User talk:SCOPE 8

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia!

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Welcome
A few things you should learn, do not edit other user's pages that is what their talk page is for. Shouting is not the way to communicate. You may wish to read Conflict of Interest as you mentioned you received permission from one of the people to post the picture. You are correct that it is not a coincidence I edited both the pages you have edited. I saw that a new editor (you) made some changes that did not fall within Wikipedia Guidelines and in fact could be considered a violation of our Biography of Living Persons guidelines therefore I wanted to ensure additional BLP issues were not made as well. I am not censoring you, however you do need to following the guidelines and rules that have been established by the community. Finally you may wish to read No Legal Threats as some of your edit summaries are getting close to that line. -- VViking Talk Edits 13:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

SCOPE 8 (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Paul McKenna
Hello, I just wanted to let you know why I've removed some of your additions to Paul McKenna. Unfortunately they contained a multitude of errors (most having to do with wikipedia-specific style such as section headers versus bold text), and, more importantly, your additions were largely unsourced. With a subject who has been the center of controversy, it is especially important to add sources to back up your claims. The existing claims in the article (such as about his PhD and so forth), as they stand, appear to be well backed up by valid sources. If you disagree with what's posted there, you will really need to prove your point with your own sources, and perhaps also a discussion on the article's Talk page. Please don't just remove existing content without fully explaining why you think it is wrong. You are of course welcome to add and make corrections, but believing you are in the right isn't enough - you need to be able to prove it with sources. I hope this is helpful. If you have questions, please let me know. Jessicapierce (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you Jessica for explaining your reasons why you thought Paul McKenna needed to be, I have to say, put right. In your opinion. To be absolutely clear, repeating a malicious libellous accusation (made by The Daily Mirror via Victor -Lewis Smith0 that resulted in the Daily Mirror being found guilty of libel and defamation at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, having to apologise to him formally and award him damages and costs) cannot be justified under any circumstances. It is also aggravated defamation.

You use the word 'subject' and then continue, and I quote :"who has been the center of controversy".( He is British and correct form when referring to him in English is the following : Centre. I am diametrically at odds with your comment about him being controversial. My additions you say are " largely unsourced".

A genuine question : In the section regarding his personal life and family, I cannot see how saying "verifiable on Ancestry.Com, or by contacting the Births Deaths and Marriage register. Naming his brother, his father, or mother, and the fact that he is married, are easily accessible facts on legal registers.

I do not think I am 'in the right'. I find the wording patronising. I have provided sources. May I suggest you provide your own before denigrating my comments and sources. If indeed you believe Paul McKenna to be a 'subject' who is a controversial, then why would you allow the defamatory remarks made by Victor Lewis Smith which are not on the official transcript, and therefore NOT covered by the law of Absolute Privilege, to remain on his Wikipedia page? He is within his rights to seek legal remedies. I'm sorry that 'unfortunately' your opinion is that his page contains a 'multitude of errors'. Freedom of speech and expression sometimes do not come packaged with a perfectly appropriate precise form of presentation, from typefaces to bold text. In all honestly,the use of the words 'multitude of errors' is incongruent and by any measure excessive.

Form being form, please feel free to make adjustments to the layout. Im afraid you have not proven your case regarding sources and following on from that the veracity of content ————

I note you have not replied to my communication. There seems to be a tangible gripe you have with Mr McKenna. You use words like 'riddled ' with errors. "Multitude ' of errors. Yet you have ignored the fact by replacing words a High Court Judge NEVER used thus you are in contempt of Court.

Sock-puppet
This is one of the many sock-puppets of Paul McKenna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.201.183 (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Jessica has not been prosecuted for being in contempt of court. She probably never will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.127.55 (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)