User talk:Spoonerj2015

December 2015
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Regressive left. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. GABHello! 02:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I intend to follow the rules but I am unsure as to what you are referring to. Everything was sourced.Spoonerj2015 (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it was sourced, but that's not quite the main issue here. Thanks for using your talk page, by the way -- that makes things much less confusing and difficult. My primary concern is that the content in question was non-neutral in tone -- it also used a novel analysis of various sources and seemed (at least in my opinion) to be somewhat partisan ("Ironically... Rather than..."). In addition, you may want to look at the 3-revert rule, Bold/Revert/Discuss and edit-warring pages -- 3RR in specific is pretty important and enforced by admins. I'm happy to talk this over on the talk page -- incidentally, I won't be online much longer, but there's no deadline for Wikipedia. Without a doubt, there will be other editors happy to talk, and I will ask another editor if they might be interested in taking a look at it. Thanks, GABHello! 02:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate the polite and helpful response but I see it as a bizarre ruling. Everything is factually correct and sourced. It appears critcism of the slogan and it's sloganeers is forbidden. If you could be more precise about specifically which segment bothered you...? Spoonerj2015 (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You are correct -- criticism is not verboten, but it should be attributed to the sources directly ("Y has argued in favor of Z... X criticizes Y"). The particular two sentences that I am not sure of were the ones that started with "Ironically" and "Rather." This is because they seem somewhat slanted, although we can discuss and re-write this if that is how the consensus leans. I'd appreciate if we could move this discussion towards the article's talk page, just because centralized discussion of the article makes a lot more sense than doing it on a user talk page (and it's common courtesy). I won't be on for much longer, but I have notified a few editors who are involved in editing on British politics and we will hopefully hear from them shortly. Thanks, GABHello! 02:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)