User talk:Ukexpat/Archive 46

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Concern
Thank you for messaging me, I would like to refer you to the amount of reference material that I have cited in my edits. I have had a number of individuals from one organization that have attempted to delete the information I have provided. It is my understanding that Wikipedia is not a PR device and because info may not popular, it is no less correct. Thank you for your time and I hope this clears up any issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henricense (talk • contribs) 21:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry but the sources that you have cited do not meet the requirements of WP:RS. If you wish to discuss this further, please do so at WP:RSN.--ukexpat (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Please Cancel Your Editions in "Liu Gang"
Hi, Ukexpat

I am the Wikipedian who created the Wiki article "Liu Gang". I want to let you know that the reverted edits you just made earlier today are involve to the confidential and private information about Liu Gang. Since those information will affect Mr. Liu's personal privacy, Mr. Liu had authorized me to make a big deletion in 4 November 2014‎ and 10 November 2014‎. I am writing to you to remove your new edition completely as soon as possible and resume to the original page that I made previously.

Wikipedia is a good place to introduce the notable people, but we also should respect the wishes of the litigant who has been written in the article.

Once again, please to recover to the OLD EDITION that made in 02:50, 10 November 2014 as soon as possible.

Thank you. 国冬礼

‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 國冬禮 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That content appears to be supported by reliable sources. If you wish to discuss further, please leave a message at WP:BLPN.--ukexpat (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Noah Pawlowski
In regard to the deletion of Noah Pawlowski because of failure on WP:NFOOTY. He is not a professional footballer and rather his inclusions would fall under the category of WP:NCOLLATH, in particular #1. He was awarded the top Canadian university honour for Goalkeeping, That is a National Award and so it seems like a clear point for inclusion.

Thanks, --YouCallThisClean? (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Then make that point in the deletion discussion.--ukexpat (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * --Thanks, ukexpat I'm trying to, I'm not as competent at navigating as I would like to be, thanks for the response though.--YouCallThisClean? (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Strap In - It's Clever Peter
Hello - just got your message about "Strap In - It's Clever Peter"; I've added some more sources and information to the page to try and avoid being deleted under the guidelines, but I couldn't find the tag to remove it - could you possibly point me in the right direction? Thanks!! David at Pozzitive Pozzitive (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You removed the tag yourself, back in 2012 (which is when Ukexpat's message was posted to your talk page). --bonadea contributions talk 12:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting that - no wonder I had no recollection of tagging that article!--ukexpat (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Khalilah Rose
Hie, I am writing to ask for your input in your opinion of this page Khalilah Rose. I am writing to you since you were one of the few who added contributions to it. At present moment it has been nominated for deletion despite all the improvements done on it. Articles for deletion/Khalilah Rose I am hoping that if you have time, that you could take a look at its current state and chime in your opinion on whether it should be kept or not. Thank you in advanceLilianarice (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
Hello. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular. The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered. If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.) If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with. Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors. I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC). Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

trimax mowing systems
Hi! I'm new to wiki and hope you could give me some comment on my draft page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Trimax_Mowing_Systems. Since my draft page was denied I added some reliable sources to the page. I would appreciate if you could help me with some advice on how to improve the page. Thank you and have a nice day Yuckfou2 (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Beatrix Campbell entry
Dear UKexpat,

I have received a message from you forwarding two messages about my recent alterations to the Beatrix Campbell page (it is a biography of living person).

When I click on the "click here to reply" to the messages, it comes up with an error signal, so I cannot reply. Would you kindly transmit these replies for me:

To Andy Mabbett who writes "As you're in touch with Beatrix Campbell, please would you draw her attention to WP:WikiVIP, and ask that she kindly oblige? We could also do with a photograph of her, and can display her ORCID ID, if she has one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy;Andy's edits 19:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[NB I think this date is an error, should be 4 December]

I would like to reply: "I am drawing B Campbell's attention to your message and asking her to consider adding a voice message, a photo, and a ORCID ID (whatever that is) if she has one".

To Clive Power, who writes: "Sturdytree - instead of just editing the Beatrix Campbell article, it would be better of you argue your points first and explain why you are removing referenced material. Otherwise people might assume bad faith on your part and simply revert your changes whereas if you explain your points then your changes may not be challenged Clive Power (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)"

I would like to reply to Clive Power: "I am considering this and will hopefully be able to act on it within a week or two."

If you can pass these messages to the correspondents concerned I would really appreciate it.

I think that Beatrix Campbell might be persuaded of the view that, since her biography is proving so contentious and costing us all such a lot of energy, it would be preferable to delete it altogether. But reading the BLP guidelines I don't see how to do this. If you can advise on the question I would appreciate it.

Thanks a lot for your help Sturdytree (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and help needed please
Hello. I am contacting you because you have been so helpful in editing my daughter's entry (Emily Carey) and I really need some help please if you can. I don't know if or how it connected to WIKI however her DOB and a fake sibling come up on a google search along with her WIKI page. Her DOB isn't listed on WIKI and I would like it to remain that way. She is 11 years old. Is there any way of making it unlisted please. I would be most grateful for any help you can offer. Thank you. Alwaysknowing (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Only some of the information that Google shows alongside its search results comes from the current version of a Wikipedia article, the rest comes from other sources on the net or from old versions of the article. The old version stuff should be removed the next time Google indexes the page. If the wrong info came from elsewhere then that's Google's problem. I am sorry but in neither case can we help you, you must contact Google.--ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Re "Immigration Reform"
I was just about to read Wikipedia's "immigration reform" page which you have just edited. I do not know what "hdgs" stands for in your comment to the history of the page. Maybe I will figure it out later. It would have been nice had you waited for my citations (mentioned in my comments in the history as coming soon) before extensively revising the Wiki page I was in the middle of revising, but I certainly agree with you that that immigration reform page needed more cleaning up than I had intended at this point. My own incompete edits also left a few loose ends and typos that I had planned to correct at the same time as adding footnotes and links. My main objective was to revise the passages here and there which might have been considered grounds for the NPOV. [The NPOV tag seemed ill-placed to me because it was impossible to see from the talk page why it had been placed at all. But there were some passages in the text of the page that could have been considered grounds for a lack of a neutral viewpoint, and that was where my attention has been focused.]

Thanks for your interest in helping clean up the immigration reform page. At some point, the US and UK sections might be split off onto separate pages, and "immigration reform" left as an international overview summary (but mentioning a lot more countries besides those two). A task for another day (for me at least).

If I have more reactions after reading the immigration reform page post your edits, and adding in the links and supporting footnotes to my prior edits (if they are still there), I will add a further comment here later.

Drew Keeling — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewkeeling (talk • contribs) 04:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't "extensively revise" anything - I just simplified the headings (hdgs) to comply with WP:MOSHEAD. I suggest that you check the history page to see who made the other edits.--ukexpat (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * RESPONSE re extensive revising. UKexpat: You are quite right of course about not having made extensive edits. I misread the numbers on the history page in that respect. I actually noticed this soon after posting my earlier remarks here, but held off on making a corrective statement until I had finished my edits (which were more extensive) of the "immigration reform" page itself. If you have a look now at the page I hope you will agree that the UK section and the US sections I have edited are now less of a "godawful mess" than before!: [ US subsections revised: (1) General Background (2) Immigration reform in the United States, 1986-2009, (9) Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization, (10) Influx of children migrants from Central America, (11) Obama's executive actions of November, 2014 ] Some of the other sub-sections could still stand considerable improvement, but I think the neutrality issues have at least been eliminated by my revisions, and I will plan to take off the NPOV tag in a few days after posting a note to that effect on the talk page to elicit any additional feedback first. Drew  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewkeeling (talk • contribs) 07:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Beatrix Campbell
I have been in touch with Beatrix Campbell asking her to respond to the interjections made by Andy Mabbett and Clive Power recently. She has responded in the terms I have pasted in below. Not being too sure what is the right procedure, I have also put these paragraphs on Clive Power's "talk" page and on that on Beatrix Campbell's own Wikipedia entry Sturdytree (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia I am writing this in response to Cynthia Cockburn who came to me with members of your community’s queries and comments. I am not sure if I have to reply directly to you, or if that is allowed. But this is what I wish to say to you. There are always issues on a Wiki page where others’ perceptions of a person might seem to be unfair or possibly misinformed. As a journalist and public person who has reported on difficult and contentious issues (and received prizes for this) this is par for the course. I am relaxed about this being on a general continuum of “fair comment.” The problem with my page, which I didn’t set up, and with which I have never engaged previously, is that it has been used by some who appear to wish to use it as a forum to argue their corner and discredit me. This cannot be right. What I am asking is that Wiki accords it with the journalistic and indeed legal principles of fairness and balance. I have no objection to people with different opinions adding to my page, or indeed engaging with me as they do on Twitter or through my website. My profession invites this but, on Wikipedia, any engagement must be accurate and fair, particularly as in general I would not personally intervene on WIKI. The issues which I argue are biased and malicious mostly arise in the section on child abuse. My objection is that my page is used to fight old wars. I am simply asking for fairness and balance. I am open about my position - a position, I might add which in the current climate, is gathering more public and political weight Let me give you some examples: Cleveland Child abuse controversy. “Campbell also wrote in favour of now discredited allegations raised in the Cleveland Child sex abuse Scandal as well as similar discredited allegations in Nottingham. On 9 February 1991 Campbell appeared on television discussion programme After Dark[9] together with the then deputy director of Nottinghamshire social services Andy Croall and others.” Neither Cleveland or Nottingham are referenced, yet this is a section which is used to discredit me. Re After Dark and Croall: I was invited to participate in the After Dark programme because I had written about the Notttingham case, and I was also awarded a prize for my documentary about it. Andy Croall had appeared on After Dark to give the point of view of Nottinghamshire County Council (he had recently been appointed Deputy Director of Social Services, and, therefore, had not been involved in the Nottingham case.) It was only during the programme, as a result of my questioning, that he revealed he had another agenda: he was a fundamentalist Christian, who strongly opposed abortion. This horrified the then Director of Social Services and the social work team involved in the case. He was sacked. Why then include him as if somehow I was aligned to him and his christian evangelism? The reference is, therefore, misleading and biased. It is not correct to say Cleveland was ‘discredited’. It is much more complicated than that. The Cleveland case aroused great national debate and a judicial inquiry. The Wiki references misrepresents my involvement. I was the ONLY journalist allowed by the judge, Butler Sloss, to interview witnesses giving evidence (after she had consulted articles I had already written on the controversy). My book was one of two written at the time. It was well received and has had a further edition, and in fact it is being reissued in the New year.It was well reviewed at the time and has remained as a reference on numerous university reading lists. The other book was written by Stuart Bell MP “When Salem came to Cleveland” who was severely criticised by the Butler Sloss inquiry. I enclose the Wikipedia reference to Cleveland on his page “At Westminster, Bell became the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition Roy Hattersley in 1983. He was promoted to the shadow frontbench in 1984 by Neil Kinnock as a Spokesman for Northern Ireland. However, he chose to resign his post after the Cleveland child abuse scandal which occupied two years of his life, after making unsubstantiated accusations of 'clinical error' against local pediatricians and child sexual abuse specialists. The paediatricians, Dr. Marietta Higgs and Dr. Geoffrey Wyatt, were later absolved and their forensic clinical work validated at a committee of inquiry overseen by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss.” There is a view the doctors in the Cleveland case were wrong, faulty in their diagnosis. This is contrary to the Butler Sloss report itself (which did not criticise the diagnosis, but rather the management of the case), and to the conclusions of both the Northern Regional Health Authority and panels of eminent experts brought in to consider the contested cases. It is not true that Nottingham was discredited, as my attached account shows. Certainly, it was the subject of highly contested opinions, but there were convictions in the criminal court, there were findings in wardship proceedings, where it was the judge who described the activities as satanic, and in the Appeal Court. Indeed all the court proceedings affirmed the work of the foster carers and social workers, and found the children’s allegations to be reliable and persuasive. The workers who were put under severe pressure by the media were never disciplined, indeed their work was commended by every judge who dealt with the case. They were even commended in parliament by the Prime Minister. In the Wiki Page on Cleveland child abuse scandal, the references are largely from the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, which in the 90’s consistently held a position that was anti-state, anti child abuse professionals. The Mail was subject to successful libel actions by medical professionals who first published research ‘reflex anal dilatation’ - the diagnosis at the heart of the Cleveland controversy. Furthermore, in the WIKi Cleveland page, references cite someone called Charles Pragnell. If you check his webpage: http://www.fassit.co.uk/charles_pragnell.htm you will see that he is highly positioned, he writes articles about child protection professionals which border on the hysterical and are utterly unreferenced. I object to the use of Pragnell as a source without any serious scrutiny of who he is. More generally, I acknowledge that I am a positioned writer, but even writers who don’t agree with me acknowledge that I am a painstaking reporter, and have drawn my attention to what they regard has been a biased Wiki account of me. My page should not be used to fight out these child wars - they are and have been toxic, though, of course, in the current climate those ridiculing and undermining the child protection work of the 80’s and 90’s may be regarded with more scepticism than they were then. I have included my referenced account of both Nottingham and Cleveland. I sincerely hope this might reassure Clive Power, and would be grateful if you could advise me about the next step forward. I apologise for the fact that I am not a WIKI participant and therefore unfamiliar with your procedures. Beatrix Campbell


 * With all due respect, I cannot deal with this unilaterally. Please discuss on the article's talk page or at WP:BLPN.--ukexpat (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)