User talk:Theweedafty

June 2017
Hello, I'm Jumpytoo. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Stephen Kerr‎, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. 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. Thank you! Jumpytoo Talk 23:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Stephen Kerr, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Home Lander (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Stephen Kerr. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please see my talk page regarding this. Home Lander (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

With respect, I have a degree in British Politics and now teach it. This seems like a strange bizarre witch hunt and a way to try and control the information selected for an open-source, participatory web information platform. What is your relationship to Stephen Kerr?

I have tried on several occasions to attach my valid citations for the information I have provided from Hansard and The Guardian. Each time I make this attempt, one of you deletes it and refers to the minor edit I have made regarding the title 'The Right Honourable', which is a term in usage at the Commons to this day.

I have been screen-shotting this strange deletion of true information regarding Stephen Kerr and will report this to other editors. You have not satisfactorily answered my main queries, but keep diverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theweedafty (talk • contribs)


 * Edits are preserved in the page history; don't waste your time screenshotting them. At this point, you do not understand policy, you're making edits that cannot stand, and are taking a threatening attitude to defend yourself. Not going to work, my friend. Home Lander (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Explain to me which edits I am making, which cannot stand please. Other than the honourable title concern you keep bringing up. Do you disagree with the other additional content I added earlier regarding his vote and his views on gay marriage? Please tell me if you disagree and why. I have seen many entries about a variety of politicians from all sides of the political spectrum that have included truthful, yet harmful information. This has not been the fault of the person adding content. It's just pure facts. If those elected, who have conflicts of interest, or who indeed behave in a manner that warrants criticism then that is perfectly appropriate. That's extremely democratic.

I'm sensing that you are somehow involved with Stephen Kerr and will do pretty much anything to keep his image shiny clean.

So again I ask - Which of my additions, specifically, did you think where somehow wrong, unwarranted or not verifiable? I have tried and tried to add perfect citations. To no avail. This is deliberate. I see what is happening here. Be honest now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theweedafty (talk • contribs)
 * You removed content that was properly sourced, then added negative content that was completely unsourced. If you can cite a source for it, then you can add it. But you haven't. You can't just write something on Wikipedia because you believe - or even know - it to be the truth. You have to cite it. Home Lander (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I see you continue to avoid answering specific questions. I have told you three times now that I've tried to add sources for my information. You have not acknowledged that. Can you let me know if there is a minimum time limit to adding citations? I would really like to contribute to honest information editing on Wikipedia but you'll have to be more open and helpful to a newbie like me.

What was the negative content you suggested I added? I'm interested to know why you think those facts are intended by me to be negative. They are informative, and if you assist me in dealing with my citation problems then the information I am posting will be verified.

So -, will you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theweedafty (talk • contribs)
 * I already told you - don't add the content without a citation. Add both in the same edit. At this point, I'm doubting you have a citation to add, and that's why we've ended up here. Home Lander (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits

 * Hello. I've just noticed your comments here. I was the user who made the comments about the Privy Council issue. I'm sorry that you feel discontented and that your efforts have been undermined. I very much appreciate what it's like to be new and how frustrating it is to be misunderstood, especially if you want to contribute to honest information as you have said. I'd like to try to answer the questions you have about why your edits were reverted. I personally have no connection to Stephen Kerr whatsoever – I am a volunteer editor on this site, just like everyone else here. In my free time I contribute towards improving this place. I have no motive to keep "his image shiny clean" at all – I totally get that it might seem that way if your contributions are being reverted. First of all this was reverted as it is an unexplained removal of already cited information, but looking at your other edits, I'm assuming this was made in error. This other edit is what I think you're referring to. The link on the preceding text shows the difference between the previous version of the page, and your addition. This addition appears to have no references. You asked about a time limit for adding citations. The answer is there isn't really, if you're editing an article about a living person, you must add a citation with your addition or immediately afterwards. From what you've written I gather that you understand verifiability and why sources are required. I had a look through your attempted edits (those that have been "disallowed" by an automated filter to prevent common vandalism) and I can see that you did in fact add references to that addition in this attempted edit. The reason why the edit was disallowed was because you, as someone who by the MediaWiki software is considered a "new user" removed references by overwriting existing content. This is clearly a false positive. You are welcome to add that paragraph with that content (as long as it has reliable references). You may also wish to tweak that paragraph so that it conforms to any guidelines concerning neutral point of view, but especially WP:Speculation. Your additions may be further disputed if they don't meet them. Again, sorry for the inconvenience. If you have any further questions, I'm all ears, please leave them here or on my talk page. —72 talk 02:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)