User talk:Tpaine99
|
May 2018[edit]
You may well be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Emma Barnett. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 13:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Emma Barnett shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Melcous (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Some admin and editors here are glossing over Emma Barnett’s wiki page. We have had to tolerate unreferenced statements that her father was a businessman and mother a housewife. Attempts to correct this were removed with various feeble excuses including that it may not have been the same Emma Barnett who had a father Ian Barnett who ran brothels and a mother Michele who laundered the profits. There were then a string of removals stating that certain facts came from unreliable sources. Further information was then removed for subjective reasons as it was deemed by Gareth to be disproportionate or irrelevant. In reality her background is very relevant and goes to the root of the class system in the U.K. something Melcous may not understand. Immoral earnings were used to fund Emma to go to an expensive and privileged public school which stepped her up in society got her to university and fashioned her right wing political views. She is in an influential position in the BBC and is inconsistent in her dealings with Conservative vs Labour politicians. One remaining important fact in the references is that the police when then arrested Ian found emails sent to Emma talking about his whores. This was important as Emma stated she knew nothing about her parents business until University- whilst being hard to believe the emails would suggest that she was fully aware before his arrest. It is therefore very much in the public interest to include that sentence in her profile - without it being suppressed by Gareth or by Mr Cross - please may I add this sentence without the risk of it being vandalised or me threatened with being blocked? JJ1970 (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- JJ1970 it is irrelevant what I may or may not understand about the UK class system. Unless there is a reliable source that has made these kinds of connections, then it is not information that wikipedia biographies can include. We don't include opinions or original research but only content, and in particular, only conclusions that have been made by other independent, secondary sources. I'd also note that you said on the article's talk page that I "threatened you with dismissal." I left you (and Tpaine) a standard template warning pointing out that you were in danger of violating wikipedia's policies on edit warring and that such behaviour can lead to editors being blocked. Please assume good faith from other editors. I would encourage you to slow down and take some time to understand wikipedia's core guidelines and policies and perhaps consider editing some other articles in which you don't have a particular agenda to gain some more experience here first. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Emma Barnett[edit]
Some admin and editors here are glossing over Emma Barnett’s wiki page. We have had to tolerate unreferenced statements that her father was a businessman and mother a housewife. Attempts to correct this were removed with various feeble excuses including that it may not have been the same Emma Barnett who had a father Ian Barnett who ran brothels and a mother Michele who laundered the profits. There were then a string of removals stating that certain facts came from unreliable sources. Further information was then removed for subjective reasons as it was deemed by Gareth to be disproportionate or irrelevant. In reality her background is very relevant and goes to the root of the class system in the U.K. something Melcous may not understand. Immoral earnings were used to fund Emma to go to an expensive and privileged public school which stepped her up in society got her to university and fashioned her right wing political views. She is in an influential position in the BBC and is inconsistent in her dealings with Conservative vs Labour politicians. One remaining important fact in the references is that the police when then arrested Ian found emails sent to Emma talking about his whores. This was important as Emma stated she knew nothing about her parents business until University- whilst being hard to believe the emails would suggest that she was fully aware before his arrest. It is therefore very much in the public interest to include that sentence in her profile - without it being suppressed by Gareth or by Mr Cross - please may I add this sentence without the risk of it being vandalised or me threatened with being blocked? JJ1970 (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Have sent the above to Gareth hope you agree! JJ1970 (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)