User talk:Bulldog4

July 2017

Hello, I'm Davey2010. I noticed that you recently removed content from Matthew Gordon Banks without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 18:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In short take your concerns to the tp, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moist Toilet anarchism

It is getting ridiculous. Moist Toilet, as I call him, is apparently no longer an editor yet alters a correct correction in 30 minutes. He is the former Rhumidian who wreck the Wiki page in 2015.

I will email HQ with the offer of original documents. This Wiki page has gone from useful for International Relations personnel to not worth reading there is so little information. Information is not going to come through newspaper cutting when he works in intelligence.Bulldog4 (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of page Matthew Gordon Banks

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Matthew Gordon Banks, you may be blocked from editing.

Please stop your disruptive editing of the Matthew Gordon Banks page, if you have any questions regarding edits please discuss them on the respective Talk page. Continued disruptive edits may lead to an IP or account Ban. Thanks.Moist towelett (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Matthew Gordon Banks. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. — fortunavelut luna 16:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy

The weakness of Wiki is it relies on newspaper reports. Even inaccurate ones. We will pursue this by sending an email of a letter from DVLA to Mr Gordon-Banks dated 26th July. This remains a personal vendetta by someone who for other reasons has had to change their user name.Bulldog4 (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not going to do anything to change the article. Please read through Wikipedia:Secondary source. We cannot edit an article using Wikipedia:Primary sources or Wikipedia:Original research.Moist towelett (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attack Investigation

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Moist towelett (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempts at threatening me have gone too far, and are disrupting meaningful editing. I have elevated this to Administrators. Please check the relevant discussion above.Moist towelett (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy

Since two national newspapers have researched and removed themselves, internet/previous content, we clearly need to do the same with the Oxford Mail as well as action previously stated. You MT have systematically removed all of the accurate information in this bio. For example 1992-7 Transport Select Committee Gordon-Banks was a leading advocate in Parliament of Rail Privatisation. His work - frequently in Hansard has been removed. That is just one example. I find it hard to understand your motivation in this case. The rules if Wikipedia state that Gordon-Banks should be described as going to Sheffield City Polytechnic - that was altered to the renamed Sheffield Hallam University. The rules are not consistently applied in this bio. The point is that people who would look Gordon-Banks up, have now have virtually all of the useful and accurate information removed.Bulldog4 (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The information doesn't have to be useful, that's not the point of wikipedia. It has to be factually correct, unbiased and relevant (see Wikipedia:Blp).Moist towelett (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 07:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Charlbury4, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Moist towelett (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]