User talk:Sparksoft

January 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--John (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --John (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --John (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi

I have been asked to correct the Wiki page on behalf of Richard Littlejohn, as it is full of inaccuracies.

The page is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Littlejohn

Apparently, I must be doing something wrong, as when I delete inaccurate content (I am supplying a reason) I get warnings and I have now been given a final warning.

I apologise if I am not following some procedure (I am new to editing Wikipedia), but perhaps you could tell me the correct procedure. But I would have thought that words from the "horses mouth" as it were, would be considered more definite than those of a hack who just happens to dislike Richard Littlejohn?

Please tell me how I can get his page corrected?

Thank you and once again, apologies if I have trangressed some of Wikipedia's rules.

Best Regards

Les :)

Sparksoft (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * See the answer to the same question you asked at the help desk. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Hello Sparksoft. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Richard Littlejohn, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  14:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

--

Regarding Conflict of interest
Hi - Thank you for your advice. There is no conflict of interest in anything I am trying to do to Littlejohn's page. I did some work for him a while back and he came back to me for advice. His wiki page is wildly inaccurate and he is quite upset about it. He simply wants to set the record straight so that his page is indeed factually correct.

How can this be done if I am not allowed to delete inaccurate content. Would you be prepared to email him directly to get the facts straight from the horses mouth? I don't want to get banned for simply removing inaccurate content! :)

Thank you again :)

Les

Sparksoft (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please go back and read again what you were told at Help desk/Archives/2012_January 6 (as you were told above):
 * "... you need to be aware that information in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable by references to independent reliable sources. Word of mouth from the subject of the article is not verifiable, not independent, and hence not acceptable for Wikipedia."
 * I don't think we can say it much more clearly than that. If there is material in the article which you believe is untrue, and for which you can find a verifiable independent reliable source to show that it is untrue, post the information to the article's talk page and it will be considered there. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

--

> I should point out I am not a personal friend of Mr Littlejohn; I have never met him or spoken to him directly, other than by email. After he helped me when I approached him in connection with a newspaper matter, I looked up his Wikipedia profile and couldn't believe what I was reading. When I brought it to his attention, he said much of it was either false, deliberately distorted or motivated by malice. There were about a dozen entries from a so-called 'journalist' who has since been exposed as an internet troll and serial plagiarist. I offered to help him seek a solution because I work in the web industry and assumed it would be a fairly simple process in putting things right. He has given me permission to send you his reply, in full, to your last email.

IN CONFIDENCE

Les,

Forgive me for being suspicious of this email. Why has it come from an open gmx email address and not from wikipedia? Why should I be at the mercy of someone who admits he/she 'is not a fan' of mine? Who is this person? My confidential tax affairs are my own business, but for what it's worth I am a UK resident, carry a UK passport, pay full UK taxes, bank in the UK and belong to a number of UK clubs - all of which are indicators of UK residency for tax purposes. I have lived in my current home in North London for 15 years and I'm a well-known figure 'around the manor' as we say in these parts. It's no secret that I do have a holiday home in Florida - where I spend some time both on business and pleasure. But the property is also rented out commercially for several months of the year. I don't live there permanently, nor am I a non-resident alien or any other kind of US resident. The idea that I should be discussing my private affairs in a column or a book, or disclosing details of my home address, is as preposterous as it is impertinent - though I've often mentioned everything from my dealings with Enfield Council, to name-chcking my local Indian restaurant owner, to the state of traffic on the North Circular, and even the name of my postman, etc, in print. My council tax status and presence on the electoral roll are matters of public record. Only this week I was writing about an incident I witnessed during half time at White Hart Lane, where I have been a Tottenham season ticket holder for 30 years. Why should I be considered to be lying unless I can prove otherwise, when anyone can edit my page to my detriment, make up a 'source' and fill the entry with falsehoods and smears, which I must then disprove? So much for the neutrality of Wikipedia. It seems to be an organisation designed to prove the old adage: a lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on. I am guilty unless I can prove myself innocent. Wikipedia is turning truth and justice on its head. I don't give a hoot what my self-styled enemies think of me, or what abusive opinions they post online or in print. There are entire bogus websites and people out there on the web and Twitter pretending to be me. I have never, ever complained. But Wikipedia poses as a bona fide operation. I merely ask for the facts to be correct. The lie that I 'live' in the US is designed to discredit my reputation as a columnist on a UK newspaper and is both professionally and commercially damaging, effectively accusing me of fraud on my readership. If Wikipedia was interested in accuracy, they would immediately remove each and every entry on the site from the utterly discredited Hari/Rose creature, all of which have been motived by malice. That's all I'm asking and it seems a reasonable request. I have taken legal advice, but I asked you to look into this because I didn't want to make a fuss or be accused of massaging my own profile. I don't want to have to take legal action against them for libel or malicious falsehood, but I will if that's what it takes, with the full backing of the Daily Mail. At Mail Online we have an absolute policy of removing from the website any incorrect facts and unsubstantiated allegations. Maybe it's time Wikipedia's unfair practices were exposed to a wider audience, starting with the 80 million global readers of Mail Online. With this cavalier approach to truth, why should anyone believe anything they read on Wikipedia? Perhaps you could convey all this to Wikipedia, in confidence, and explain that I still hope to resolve this amicably. Sorry that you are being messed around,

Thanks,

Richard

Sparksoft (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sparksoft (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)