User talk:Teacross

Natalie Bennett
Your edits to this article constitute copyright infringement and violate WP:BLP. I have removed them all. Any further attempts to violate Wikipedia policy on this article may result in a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You continue to make non-neutral, non-policy-compliant edits to this article. The "controversies" section was unreliably sourced (you cannot source to blogs, in this instance a self-announced left wing blog). Consider this a second warning of BLP violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your judgement Bbb23. The post was entirely neutral. The blog in question was a respected blog by Green party activists themselfs. It's not fair that you feel the need to keep giving me "warnings". I'm new to editing wikipedia pages and I'm trying my best. It's just not fair that you feel the need to treat your volunteers in this way. It's come to light that your "warnings" have been as a result of complaints from Natalie Bennett herself. Hardly a neutral source. Furthermore it's also come to light that users are asked to resolve issues between each other before contacting admin. No attempt was made by Natalie Bennett or anybody else, to contact me via talk to state clearly what their problem was. If they'd have done that I would have gladly worked with them to resolve the issues to everybody's satisfaction. Could you advise me how to contact your superiors to make a complaint about YOUR conduct? Teacross (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You appear to only be interested in the Bennett article, and you also seem to be only interested in adding negative content. Take a look at WP:RS, WP:SPS, and WP:BLP. "Superiors" is an odd word at Wikipedia, but you could start a topic at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

How am I supposed to have time to work on other articles when the first one I work on is being moderated so much? The issue is that on wikipedia politician's pages often seem to be biased in their favour as they are almost exclusively edited by that party's press office or campaigns teams. The fact that Natalie Bennett herself is complaining about any content she doesn't like proves this. The content I was adding is important to give balance to the issue, and since your first "warning" I worked very hard to ensure it could in no way appear to be biased. Again I'd like to stress that I disagree with your second warning - the article was from a so called "blog" but not a personal blog. It's a well-respected website written by Green Party members who are also journalists. I really struggle to believe that the only content from newspapers and TV stations websites are allowed on wikipedia. I will look into the complaints process you reccomend. But until then could you please address the rest of my points from the previous messgae? Teacross (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's actually to Bennett's credit that she is seeking help with the article rather than editing it herself. There's nothing wrong with her - or anyone else - complaining that an article is being changed in an inappropriate manner. That, of course, doesn't mean that I just do whatever she says. I only act if I agree with her. As for the blog, it doesn't matter whether it's "well-respected" or written by members or even journalists. It's a standalone blog (not attached to an otherwise reputable secondary periodical). Worse, it has a political agenda: "We do news and analysis for the green and progressive movement, and we’re one of Britain’s leading left wing blogs." However, if you want to get more editors' opinions on whether it can be used, try opening a topic at WP:RSN. Oh, by the way, you don't need to keep adding comments to my talk page. I have your talk page on my watchlist and will respond here (assuming I'm on-wiki) as soon as I can.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 is correct, blogs like this can't be used as sources. They might be interesting reads, but they aren't independent, and our policy is clear on this.  Newspapers and the like are professionally vetted by people who don't have a personal investment in the news itself, whereby corporate or organizational blogs, well they obviously do.  Occasionally they can be linked as external links in very limited circumstances, but they can't be used to source facts. WP:RS is pretty clear about this, and it is the playbook we all play by. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if the wikipedia rules are clear that a source like the one I used can't be used then fair enough. I fundamentally disagree with Dennis Brown though, on the point that "Newspapers and the like are professionally vetted by people who don't have a personal investment in the news itself" just look at the Murdoch press for example. All newspapers are in some way politically biased and this comes across in almost every story they print.Teacross (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Dennis is making a general distinction between blogs and newspapers. Obviously, there are distinctions to be made between different newspapers, and some are more reliable than others. A gross distinction, for example, might be between tabloids and mainstream newspapers. This also varies from country to country. Not a simple matter. However, the policy about blogs is more brightline than the more nuanced analysis of different newspapers.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

October 2012
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Nick Clegg does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Road Wizard (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)