User talk:Ktwood2524

December 2019

Hello, I'm Uamaol. I noticed that you recently removed content from Veterans and People's Party 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. UaMaol (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Veterans and People's Party

I have noticed your recent edits to the Veterans and People's Party. Are you in anyway connected with the subject of the article, the Veterans and People's Party? Thanks UaMaol (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am the communications officer and your edits are false, inaccurate and libellous, may I suggest you refrain from editing further

Thank you for your swift reply. Firstly, if you are the "Communications Officer" that would mean you would have a conflict of interest (COI). Wikipedia guidelines state: COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts. You can read further here: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If you you want changes to be made to the article, you must declare your COI and then propose the changes on the talk page and not make the edits yourself.

Secondly, if my edits are "false, inaccurate and libellous", that is your own personal opinion and everyone is entitled to their own opinion however correct or not. Assuming you didn't have a COI, your edits would be considered disruptive as yourself, and preceding users are consistently removing references and adding content that either lacks a source or is copied from elsewhere. Removal of references is not justified unless they are non-notable or against Wiki policy, which does not apply here. Addition of content, in particular to something which is potentially controversial, without references as well as content copy and pasted from elsewhere, is also not allowed.

Lastly, if libel has occurred whether or not it is backed up by sources, you should post to the talk page and request that an experienced user without a COI take a look at it. Also, what is mean by "may I suggest you refrain from editing further?" Thanks UaMaol (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I accept you may feel I have a COI and am happy for someone who is independent to review this, however, to suggest a political party is islamaphobic when it clearly is not, is not an opinion it is in fact a falsity.

The only edits we have made is to correct the inaccurate information displayed for example Robin Horsfall is not the Leader, the website has changed, the party is not islamaphobic, and the party does not proport to be Eurosceptic only upholders of democracy.

Might I suggest you read the website before you revert back to your previous edits stating as such. ukvpp.org

Thanks

Where is your evidence that the VAPP isn't islamophobic? There is so little coverage of the party that it is difficult enough trying to expand the article beyond a stub, let alone to disprove such a claim. Wikipedia is not about opinions nor falsehoods, it is about facts. Personal opinions are never reliable, whether or not you are connected to the subject or not. I have read the website, and the other website, and the other other website. In fact it is pretty difficult to tell what the official party website is considering the one for the assumed Facebook page shows "ukvandpp.org" (which is dead) whereas the the one where two of the references come from is "vapp.org.uk". You are providing me with "ukvpp.org" as saying that is proves that what is said is incorrect. Even if it does, I have only your word that this third website is the official website of the VAPP and not an attempt at slandering the party. Assuming this is the now official website, what it say about a certain issue is does not make the source notable, however I have checked the source for the "islamophobic" reference and it already exists on the website which you are giving me. I could just as easily add the same reference again but with the new party web address if you like, but there's not much point as both say the exact same thing! UaMaol (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Euroscepticism, the reference (the Guardian, which is considered a very reliable source) contains the quote confirming such "The mood among the pro-Brexit marchers was one of anger and defiance as far-right groups such as The White Pendragons and For Britain took their place alongside Veterans’ and People’s Party and Ukip with the sound of God Save the Queen and “Free Tommy” booming through the streets." You might not agree with the source, but is one of the few major outlets that have mentioned you, let alone reported directly on you (Only the Metro so far, which reads like a press release).UaMaol (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]