User talk:Brycewilby

April 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm Notcharizard. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Five Islands Academy, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 14:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am the source - I am the person the article is talking about ... Brycewilby (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Five Islands Academy, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 14:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I am the reliable source as the edits are about me ....

Thanks Brycewilby (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This makes your editing more concerning. Please see WP:NOR and WP:COI. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 14:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Five Islands Academy, you may be blocked from editing. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 14:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

This information is about me and is deliberately misleading. Either correct it or remove it ...

Thank you Brycewilby (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add a reliable source to the information you are adding, and it will stay. Otherwise there is no reason to believe you. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 14:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I've added a source Brycewilby (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022 -[edit]

Hello Bryce Wilby,

I feel it may be appropriate to write a non-automated message explaining to you why your recent edits to the page Five Islands Academy may not be in keeping with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines.

First of all, when you first stated editing the page, you did not use references to support the statements you added, which as the messages above explain, is not allowed. I see now you’ve added references now, but there might be a problem (emphasis on might). You see, when it comes to controversial statements about living people (which the statements you added could be considered as), Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources. All the sources you use are from the website Scillytoday, which I have no reason to distrust, however, it is unlikely to fulfil the requirements in WP:Reliable sources policy, especially regarding BLPs , which I recommend you read.

Another reason why your edits may not be in keeping with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines is that you have a Conflict of Interest. You have identified yourself as the Headteacher in the case, Bryce Wilby, and therefore, you have a clear conflict of interest when editing this page about the school you used to lead. Wikipedia strongly discourages editors from editing pages where they would have a conflict of interest, so I would suggest that you refrain from editing the article in question. If you have any problems with the accuracy of the article, I would recommend bringing it up on the talk page.

Another thing you might want to note is that all Articles on Wikipedia must be written with a Neutral Point of View (NPOV).

If you have any more queries, please let me or another editor know.

-

HenryTemplo (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice.

I have remained entirely neutral, simply stating the facts and have cited reliable sources. Brycewilby (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, and all things considered, you have done a good job to do so. However, it would be highly unlikely for you to be entirely neutral, due to the discussed Conflict of Interest. Regarding the sources, I personally would trust the statements presented in them, but as I mentioned, the source you used might not be considered reliable in the context of a controversial statement. I would recommend a source from a more reputable outlet, like the BBC, The Guardian, etc, who I believe have published articles about the controversy. HenryTemplo (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I notice "better source needed" has been added to the citations I used.

Why does this not apply to citation 3 or 13?

Citation 3 is a biased article written by the people it refers to - so of course they will have a positive opinion about what they did?

Citation 13 is a smaller news outlet source, with many less articles published, than any of the citations I used?

Why is there not the equal stance on these citations?

Who decides the citations I have used are not good enough and yet these ones are?

It seems to be that there is some biased thinking going on here and not a neutral point of view ??

My so called conflict of interest is that I believe facts should be used not arbitrary opinions that when used out of context misrepresent the reality of what happened. I believe in fairness and equality of treatment and yet this has not been the case for this article.

Why not? Brycewilby (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I added the better source needed tag to those citations to flag it for other editors, as I have concerns that they may not be appropriately reliable (under Wikipedia’s guidelines) for the statements, see the policies regarding BLPs. If you have concerns about the reliability of the sources, do feel free to bring it up on the articles talk page. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so we can work together to solve any issues. HenryTemplo (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to update you, I have notified the Reliable sources noticeboard about the sources and their reliability in the context of the controversy involving living people. Feel free to check it out here. HenryTemplo (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another update, it seems that the sources used are reliable in the context! I’ll remove the tag, unless any other editors express concern about the reliability of the source. However, you CoI still needs addressing, and so I might rewrite some of the article to make sure there is a NPOV. Enjoy your day! HenryTemplo (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]