User talk:ExplodingCabbage

June 2024

Hello, I'm FlightTime. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk.

Daily mail is NOT a reliable source - FlightTime (open channel) 22:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, mate. I've spelt out in excruciating detail on that article's Talk page (which I directed readers to in the summary of the edit you reverted) both:

that the article currently includes claims that are sourced from the Daily Mail and not from any other currently cited source, and therefore we cannot simply remove the citations without also removing the claims or else we will leave them uncited, and
that the claims in question ARE republished in non-deprecated sources, but that I think it's inappropriate to cite those sources over the DM in this particular case because their articles are all just plagiarism (in the form of either outright copy-and-paste or else paragraph-by-paragraph close paraphrasing) of the original reporting from the DM, and
that other sources (besides the plagiarists) corroborate much of the DM's reporting in these particular two articles and thus lend them credibility above the baseline for the DM, and
that we therefore face a trilemma: either 1. remove the claims, 2. cite the Daily Mail, or 3. launder a citation to the Daily Mail by citing one of the non-deprecated sources that plagiarised the Daily Mail's article

If you're not going to suggest which fork of that trilemma we should pick, what's the point in touching the issue at all? Ripping out the citation without any further changes just puts the article into an unambiguously unacceptable state where we are repeating claims from the Daily Mail without any supporting citation at all; that obviously needs reverting, and doesn't move us any closer to a final resolution. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe you don't realize, we have rule and guidelines here. - FlightTime (open channel) 12:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And those "rules and guidelines" say we should source information from the Daily Mail but pretend we're not doing so, do they? ExplodingCabbage (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is: stop adding deprecated sources to Wikipedia. No, you haven't come up with another clever hack to put DM links as references into Wikipedia. No, you can't use WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on a talk page or arguing against multiple editors on multiple personal talk pages.

The deprecation of the DM was passed in a broad general RFC, ratified in a second broad general RFC and broadened even further in a third general RFC (the one that found that the DM are such inveterate liars that dailymail.co.uk cannot be trusted as a source for the content of the Daily Mail). You know this already.

If you really want to use DM links as references in the way you are, the place to make your pitch is the place where general RFCs on sourcing are held - that's WP:RSN.

If you are serious in your proposal, take it to WP:RSN. If you aren't serious, keep doing what you're doing - David Gerard (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue this particular line of discussion in the duplicate thread at User talk:David Gerard#Please stop indiscriminately removing citations of deprecated sources. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you assume ownership of articles, as you did at List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't assumed ownership of anything.

Literally the only thing I have done in that article that has involved overriding any other editors' wishes is revert removals of a Daily Mail citation while information sourced from the Daily Mail remained in the article with no other supporting citation. In each case, I explained why I had done it, spelt out precisely what content was currently sourced from the Daily Mail, pointed the editors to a discussion I'd started about what to do about those particular citations, and made clear, explicitly, that I would not object to the editors removing the citations so long as they also removed the content that was sourced from those Daily Mail articles. My beef with the removals - as I've spelt out every time - was that they falsified the references list by removing a source the article still in fact used. Whatever the merits of making or reverting edits that remove citations of sources an article's content still depends on - and there's an ongoing discussion of that on David's Talk page that I may yet bring to a noticeboard for an outside opinion - it's still the case that the matter could've been resolved instantly if you or David had simply agreed the information sourced from the Daily Mail should be removed and asked me to go ahead and remove it.

Instead we're now in a situation where, for reasons unclear to me and that you have not articulated anywhere, you have reverted us to a version where we're sourcing information from the Daily Mail, despite now-unanimous consensus from three users involved in the discussion on the article's Talk page to rip out anything for which the Mail is the only source, and despite David also agreeing on his Talk page that this should happen.

I suggest you look at your own behaviour. You have undone edits of mine that implemented other users' unopposed suggestions from the Talk page without offering any real explanation of why, while SHOUTING AT ME IN ALL CAPS (and personally insulting me) in your edit summary, and have sneered at my attempts to discuss and contribute on the grounds of me being a new user with few contributions. I don't think I'm the one exhibiting "ownership" behaviour, here. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass other editors. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the fucking stick, or get blocked from editing Wikipedia altogether, your choice! - FlightTime (open channel) 21:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've harassed anyone, nor do I think I'm continuing a debate beyond its natural end. I certainly haven't harassed anyone "purposefully". For that matter, I don't know who specifically you're suggesting I've harassed (obviously either you, David, or both, but I don't know which) nor what specific debate you're referring to (though obviously it relates to either the fatal dog attacks page or the discussion on David's talk page).

If you want posting this here to be in any way productive, I suggest spelling out what specific actions of mine you find objectionable and why.

And, again, I suggest you look at your own behaviour. You have repeatedly treated me with rudeness and hostility and taken actions targeted at me that I find it difficult to see any justification for. At this point it is probably worth listing them. You:

in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom&direction=next&oldid=1230288420 SHOUTED AT ME in all caps while declining to participate in the ongoing Talk page discussion about the citation you were removing.
when I tried to resolve my dispute with David (and later you) on David's Talk page:
- removed my entire post (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Gerard&oldid=1230301302)
- stated falsely in the edit summary that you had explained on my Talk page why you had done that (you hadn't, and never did)
- after I restored the deleted post, voiced your contempt for me on the basis of my being a new user with few edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Gerard&oldid=1230386720)
in response to me explaining the circumstances around the Daily Mail citation and seeking input, you simply replied that "we have rule and guidelines here", without offering any constructive suggestion on how you felt the situation should be resolved, nor citing any such rules and guidelines responsive to my argument that using the Daily Mail as an undisclosed source is surely worse than using it with an explicit citation
reverted edits of mine on what you could have seen with a few minutes of scrutiny were unambiguously false grounds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FlightTime#Reverted_edits_to_List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom), even though by doing so you reintroduced reliance on the Daily Mail as a source (which was ostensibly what you objected to in the first place!)
called me a "DISRUPTIVE USER", again in SHOUTING CASE, in the edit summary
falsely marked that edit as a "minor edit", reducing the chance that others watching the page would review it and weigh on the dispute
swore at me here on my Talk page
posted a slew of (IMO false) accusations on this page - that I have assumed ownership of articles, harassed other users, and failed to "drop the stick" after an argument had run its course - all without pointing to the actions that you think constitute any of these things or explaining your position
threatened that I will be blocked from editing Wikipedia
accused me of edit warring and demanded I stop making edits without achieving consensus, even though my edits have been implementing already-achieved consensus from discussions in the article's Talk page which you have repeatedly declined to participate in

All of this is unpleasant and unconstructive, and it strikes me as far more reasonably characterizable as "harassment" than anything I have done. Do you really think, after looking over that list of actions, that you have treated me in a way that is acceptable and constructive? ExplodingCabbage (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass other editors again, as you did at User talk:FlightTime, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wdit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FlightTime#Reverted_edits_to_List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom. Every single edit was implementing the requests of other users on the Talk page, and the justification you gave for reverting them in the edit summary (that they were unsourced OR) was unambigously factually false. If you want to undo my good faith, sourced, consensus-implementing edits, then you should go the Talk page and explain what you think is wrong with them. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ExplodingCabbage, I'd normally recommend discussion and limit the block in a way that allows you to still discuss the matter on talk pages, but I'm afraid that this would encourage sealioning and a failure or refusal to "get the point". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it will be another admin who reviews my appeal below, but I am really, really curious what you perceive to be going on in this "edit war" that warrants blocking me and not blocking @FlightTime.

I kind of suspect you have read the prior argument about the merits of keeping the Daily Mail citations (temporarily or otherwise) and made some wrong assumptions about the situation at the time that you blocked me. Did you understand that the previous argument about whether to cite the Daily Mail in the article had run its course on the Talk page, consensus had been reached to eliminate both the Mail citations and any information sourced from the Mail, and that then I went ahead and implemented that, both removing the citations and variously removing or re-sourcing the claims? And that the removal of information from the Mail is what @FlightTime then reverted?

Did you understand that the "edit war" warning @FlightTime added to my Talk page was added (after the end of the dispute about whether to keep the Daily Mail citations had already been resolved and there was no further prospect of the citations being re-added) was added pre-emptively by @FlightTime when he first reverted those changes and reintroduced content from the Daily Mail - accusing me of engaging in an edit war before I had yet made even a single revert as part of that alleged war?

Were you aware that before doing my one and only revert of @FlightTime's revert, I spelt out in excruciating detail on his Talk page why his stated reason for reverting (that my changes were unsourced) was false - literally listing every claim I'd added and the citation in the article that corroborated it - and his response was to delete that from his Talk page, accuse me here of harassing him by making the post, and then re-revert my changes (and reintroduce the Daily Mail claims yet again) with an entirely new, equally inapplicable and unexplained edit summary?

Blocking me in these circumstances - rather than blocking the editor cycling through blatantly false justifications for reverting changes agreed on in the Talk page and then deleting discussion about it - just seems nuts to me, and makes me think you are under some misapprehension about what was going on. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ExplodingCabbage (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There was no justification for this block in the first place. The edits I was blocked for were clearly beneficial, implemented the consensus reached after discussion on the article's talk page, and were reverted on false, bad faith grounds by an editor who - despite my best efforts - refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion about them and who has over the past several days engaged in a pattern of abusive behaviour towards me. Furthermore, after initially making those edits, I only reintroduced them once, and only after outlining clearly on the reverting user's Talk page that his asserted reason for reverting them (that they were unsourced) was false and inviting him to discuss any other objections. This was likely incorrectly perceived by the blocking admin as me continuing an "Edit war" because when the other editor first reverted my changes, after I first made them, he immediately and pre-emptively edited a warning onto my Talk page accusing me of engaging in an edit war; in reality I had just introduced the contested changes for the first time, and went on to revert their removal only once, only after attempting to start a discussion about them, and with even more sources added to attempt to address the complaint that they were unsourced. I do not see how reimplementing a set of reverted changes once, with further improvements to address the ostensible concerns of the reverter, and only after posting at great length to explain why the reason given for reverting them in the first place was false, can possibly constitute "edit warring" or justify a block. I should be unblocked and either allowed to go ahead and reimplement those changes - which have the support of those who have discussed them on the article's Talk page and for which no good objection has so far been raised - or else at least allowed to take the matter to dispute resolution. (If directed by the unblocking admin to refrain from editing the article for now and post in dispute resolution, I will follow that direction. However, it is not clear to me that this would be wise direction to give since the other party refuses to engage in discussion about the edits and has made clear that they view continuing to discuss them as harassment; certainly going to dispute resolution will be seen as further "harassment". Another approach may be preferable.)

More detail:

The changes that triggered @FlightTime to warn me for "edit warring" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=1230418265&oldid=1230300962) and the reimplementation of those changes after they were reverted that finally triggered this block (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1230549661) both implemented consensus, reached unopposed on the article's Talk page, to:

1. remove, or else re-source, claims for which the Daily Mail was the only source, and

2. use a consistent style for the "Date" column in the table in the article (which previously was inconsistent about listing either the date when the victim was attacked or the date when they died)

To date, @FlightTime - the editor who has repeatedly reverted these changes - has not articulated any coherent, truthful objection to these changes, despite my multiple attempts to engage. Instead he has sworn at and threatened me here on my Talk page and accused me of a slew of offences including harassment. Multiple users have agreed that these changes should happen; the only opposition is his, and he is unwilling to engage in any sensible discussion about it.

His reverts of my changes, and his untruthful justifications for them in edit summaries, occurred in the context of a pattern of abusive actions towards me and false statements - CTRL-F on my Talk page for "You have repeatedly treated me with rudeness and hostility" to see a list - and he gave entirely false reasons for them in his edit summaries on both occasions, first claiming (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1230463057) that my edits were unsourced OR and next (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1230566485) that they are "POV trolling". Prior to reverting the edit claiming my changes were unsourced OR, I posted on his Talk page listing every change of mine that he had reverted and the cited sources that corroborated it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FlightTime&oldid=1230549833#Reverted_edits_to_List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom); his response to this was simply to delete my post and adding an "only warning" here characterising that post as purposeful and blatant harassment. As for the claim that my edits are "POV trolling", I think that simply glancing at them will show that this is not the case; there is no contentious political or ideological content to them at all.

For me to be the one being blocked in these circumstances, when I have spent many hours and great amounts of effort trying to engage in any meaningful discussion of the article with @FlightTime, strikes me as an obvious injustice that in no way benefits the article in question. This block should never have been issued. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is one of the longest unblock requests for a two week block I have ever seen in my 6 years as an admin. No, I didn't read it all. This request justifies the block, instead of showing why it should be removed. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I feel confirmed in not making it a partial block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's depressing. I guess what I'm hearing here is: keep talk page stuff short and focused only on the most important points, or risk being written off as a loon by everyone who reads it. Well, noted for 2 weeks' time. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, these two diffs seem to show that the complaint was for vandalism. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; I never got a notification about being mentioned there. I guess there's something special about that page that makes user mentions there not create notifications? Thanks for pointing it out.

(Obviously, I object to all the accusations made against me in that diff, for reasons already outlined above and not worth recapitulating.) ExplodingCabbage (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Authority control

The page you mention says:

Position

As a metadata template, the Authority control template should be placed after the external links section and navigation templates.

-- ends --

The standard layout is See also, References, External links. These are all optional and can sometimes have different names, moreover there are alternatives particularly in the references/footnotes/sources arena. After that end matter which completes the article proper you get sometimes succession boxes, navboxes and authority control. After that there are a few invisible bits and pieces, like coordinates (which is visible, strictly speaking, but generally the location of display depends on the setup of the template), then DEFAULTSORT then categories then stub templates then any interwikis (of which there are only a very few remaining, mostly links to sections I think).

Hope that helps.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, got that - but for some reason I thought you'd put the template above the references list and that I was moving it below the references list where it belongs. When I take another look at my edit, though, I see that that's nonsense and that actually you'd put it in the right place and I moved it below the categories, which is wrong. Not sure how I got that wrong. (I think I must have assumed without properly reading that the existing wikitext below the ==References== heading was all references.)

Sorry for my incompetence - will revert now. :)

(I'm still not really clear on what the point of having the Authority control template in the article at all is, given that it doesn't seem to render anything currently.) ExplodingCabbage (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby team

Three speedy deletion nominations, multiple (not only me) ignored advices to bring it to AfD and still you see no pointy actions? The Banner talk 01:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What point do you claim he was trying to make? What policy was he trying to discredit? How are any of the actions you list even relevant to WP:POINTY? ExplodingCabbage (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion The Banner talk 11:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not he was applying the speedy deletion rules correctly (not sure, would have to scrutinize the rules carefully to form an opinion), it seems very obvious to me that @PeeJay wanted the disambiguation page deleted in order to allow the rename to be undone, which he was advocating for because he sincerely believed undoing the rename was the right thing to do. I do not see any plausible interpretation of his actions where they were all a scheme to discredit the speedy deletion criteria, and I don't really see how you can believe that they were.

(In particular, I really don't see how you can view the act of giving up on the speedy deletion once it was challenged and making a move request instead as being meant to discredit the speedy deletion criteria. How could that possibly work?) ExplodingCabbage (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Abdul Hai (politician)

The article Abdul Hai (politician) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Title is ambiguous - both Abdul Hai (UK politician) and Abdul Hai (Bangladeshi politician) are politicians. Furthermore there is already a disambig page at Abdul Hai, so I see no reason to create a second one. Suggest we simply delete this page.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily this is an amusing failure mode of your bot - it's notifying me of a deletion proposal that I proposed, on the automatically-created redirect page left behind when I renamed a page.

It's no big deal (and I don't know if it's technically difficult), but it'd be neat if your bot could check who proposed a page's deletion and avoided notifying authors of deletions they proposed themselves. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how this works. There is no prod for redirects created as a result of a move. Barring extenuating circumstances, there is generally no good reason to delete these. If you think the redirect should be deleted, then please use RfD. -Fastily 00:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That may be (and the admin who removed the proposal template would seem to agree with you), but it's orthogonal to the point I was making to you here, which is that there's no point in the bot notifying me about my own proposals. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You made a mistake because you failed to read/follow instructions. I'm not going to change the bot to account for errors like this. -Fastily 09:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this proposal was a mistake. But there is no reason that a valid, non-mistaken PROD couldn't be made on one's own article; the suggestion here doesn't in any way hinge on the particular merits on my PROD. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hai

I like the article, though you belabour his non-conviction. He is, by the way, a close friend of Keir Starmer, and helped him get selected for the 2015 GE (Starmer attempted to repay the favour this year, unsuccessfully). 2.101.99.164 (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I personally felt like everything in the non-conviction section was relevant and necessary to portray the whole picture - that he was acquitted, that this (if we suppose the note given to Miah's lawyers was genuine) perversely happened despite the jury actually being convinced he was guilty of murder and ready to convict (... but perhaps only because it was a racist jury), that he denies having even been present, that he's taken legal action to suppress accusations against him, and that at least some such accusations that we're able to see (like Tommy Robinson's) are undeniably false and that he's suffered personally due to the aura of suspicion around him. I think eliminating any element of that leaves the reader with a meaningfully incomplete picture. That said, you are certainly welcome to edit or to argue for changes on the Talk page, and having written the entire first version of the article I'll try to step back and let others reshape it in any reasonable way they see fit.

The closeness to Starmer was mentioned in the OPEN Newham article I cited and I think I saw people say the same thing on Twitter, and of course Hai notes having worked with Starmer on his personal website, but I didn't really find any mainstream sources acknowledging their friendship. (OPEN Newham seems to be a fairly nasty political gossip rag and some of their content is satire; I didn't want to rely on them as a source for hard facts, only for opinionated commentary.) Do you have a solid source noting the friendship between the two of them that we could cite or do you know this stuff from unciteable insider knowledge? It would be good to include, but only if we can do so in a policy-compliant way. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's very little written down, let alone citeable. But I can tell you along similar lines (even if it can't be included in articles) that it will have been Mishcon de Reya who reported the tweet. And that his claims of having 'suffered' are absolute junk. Forget Morgan McSweeney personally intervening to stop him from becoming an MP; Abdul Hai would never have even been a councillor if Richard Everitt hadn't been murdered. You are, of course, absolutely correct that Tommy Robinson's tweet that he was convicted is completely false. 2.101.99.164 (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]