Jump to content

User talk:NewPolitician

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Edward Dean - Fareham and Waterlooville, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Rejoin EU, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, visit the Teahouse, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Gaismagorm (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaismagorm is wrong[edit]

I do not have any conflict of interest in editting the pages today. Bit I do have an interest is accuracy. The edits were simply factual, they simply state the people in my political party that have factually been accepted by their various Returning Offices as being valid candidates in the upcoming election. The previous entries were indeed wrroneous, and I corrected the errors. That means that it will be you, Gaisagorm, who is the vandal if you remove my edits, And if you do so, I will complain to whoever is a higher authority in Wikipedia Edward Dean - Fareham and Waterlooville (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

geez, calm down. and don't accuse me of vandalism, especially when I have not even reverted your edits. I'm merely stating that wikipedia doesn't reccomend editing about yourself or your associated, wether the info you are inserting is factually accurate or not. Gaismagorm (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have admitted to being a vandal, 5000 times it seems. You even have the gall to suggest that I should allow my corrections of Wikipedia errors to be censored by yourself. Just go away, mate! If Wikipedia wants to do something, that's fine. If you want to, think again! Edward Dean - Fareham and Waterlooville (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Information icon Hello, I'm Gaismagorm. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Gaismagorm (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my question: Who in Wikipedia can I complain about you to? Edward Dean - Fareham and Waterlooville (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well I suppose the administrators incidents board. Not exactly anything for you to complain about though. Gaismagorm (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about this, I reckon Wikipedia can't really tell from user names whether there is a conflict of interest, since it is easy to get false email addresses from gmail etc. I guess they have to make an assessment based on what is actually posted.
Today I hope to update the list of 2024 candidates with the 26 that seem to have been unaccountably omitted. I am very careful, but you or anyone else is welcome to check my work and tell me if I make some kind of mistake. Edward Dean - Fareham and Waterlooville (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That is useful information, though a bit vague, so our interaction has been useful for me. I am one of the people who know best on the particular subject that I corrected. I hope it has been useful for you too, to know that people, and especially politiians, do not like anything that might look like censorship or control, even if it is meant well. Have a nice rest of the weekend. Edward Dean - Fareham and Waterlooville (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. 90.251.20.238 (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because the username, Edward Dean - Fareham and Waterlooville, matches the name of a well-known, living person.

If you are the person represented by this username, please note that the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia. You may choose to edit under a new username (see information below), but keep in mind that you are welcome to continue to edit under this username.

If you choose to keep your current username, please send an email to info-en@wikimedia.org including your real name and your Wikipedia username to receive instructions from our volunteer response team about account verification. Please do not send documentation without being requested to do so.

If you are not the person represented by this username, you are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

Please take a moment to either create a new account, or request a username change. The new username that you choose must comply with Wikipedia's username policy.

  • To create a new account with a different username, simply log out of this account and then make a new one.
  • If you prefer to change the username of this account, you may do so by adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page (this page): {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Please note that the new username you choose cannot already be used by another account. You can search to see if the username you'd like to choose is available. If the search returns no account with that username, that means it is still available.

Appeals: If your username is not in violation of Wikipedia's username policy, and if you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the following text to the bottom of your user talk page here: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Thank you. Cabayi (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Requested username:

Request reason:

Wikipedia blocked my previous name which I had not intended as any kind of advertisement

Accept reason:

Renamed & unblocked. As noted above, "the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia". It was a separate issue from your conflict of interest issues. Cabayi (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Cabayi (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sources[edit]

I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. When you include a citation it means your edits are less likely to be reverted. You can have a look at referencing for beginners for further help. Thank you. 90.251.20.238 (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entres that have been deleted all referred to Rejoin EU, which is a reference to a Wikipedia entry. The effect of your reversions seems to be that Wikipedia is preventing candidates in the general election from being mentioned. I would say that that goes against the spirit of Wikipedia and may even get Wikipedia into legal trouble in the UK. Considering that it took me three or four hours to do the entries, I hope that you will undelete them. NewPolitician (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, please be very cautious with statements like may even get Wikipedia into legal trouble in the UK. Per WP:NLT legal threats are not permitted and will result in an instant block (I assume you weren't intending to make a threat, though – just be wary of that topic).
Second, the sources that the IP above is requesting aren't just links to the party article. Please see WP:RS to understand what we mean by sources, and WP:CS to learn how to cite sources. Unsourced statements are likely to be removed outright; that's not an attempt to prevent anyone being mentioned, we just need everything to be sourced. — Czello (music) 11:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a threat. But it is clear that Wikipedia is taking sides in a political contest. What does that do for Wikipedia's reputation for impartiality? 193.117.166.37 (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, we're not taking sides. We're simply asking for sources for something to be added, which is how the encyclopedia works. — Czello (music) 11:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the camndidates from one particular political party IS taking sides. Let's gop to arbitration. How do I do that? 193.117.166.37 (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid repeating myself see my comment at WP:COIN. — Czello (music) 11:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to Dispute Resolution NewPolitician (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty. You may be disappointed with the results. — Czello (music) 11:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far I'm discovering that Wikipedia juist doesn't like anyone to challenge it, so I'm beginning to feel like on of those whistleblowers that we read about! NewPolitician (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're happy to be challenged, when in keeping with policies. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said that you were "asked by my party" to make these edits. That absolutely means that you have a conflict of interest. You must formally disclose that now. (click the link for instructions). Note that Wikipedia does not necessarily provide equal time and equal treatment to all points of view or all political parties, it depends on the coverage in reliable sources. If I go to the UK and create the 331dot Party that does not immediately entitle me to add my party's candidates to every relevant article- nor should I do so myself as a representative of the party. If you are saying that a law in the UK requires Wikipedia to do that, you need to communicate that to Wikipedia's lawyers, see WP:LEGAL for instructions. I think that very unlikely, we aren't new at this. Furthermore, Wikipedia is physically located in the United States where UK law has not applied since 1776. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't represent a conflict of interest. It represents an authority. I am authorised by my party to correct errors in Wikipedia that affect my party.
    What is now happening is that other contributors of Wikipedia have made errors and omissions, making Wikipedia no longer impartial, and Wikipedia is preventing me from correcting those faults and making it impartial again.
    I formally disclosed my interest in this matter through my original username, which WIkipedia editors objected to.
    One could not make this silliness up! Wikipedia aims to be accurate and impartial and its editors are using a ridid interpretation of rules that ignore its aims and end up making it partial and erroneous! NewPolitician (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a classic case of a conflict of interest, unambiguously so.
    And again, it's not a big ask to want a source to back up your claims. I'm not sure why you're so reluctant to provide them. — Czello (music) 11:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The conflict here is between WIkipedia's aims to be accurate and impartial, a the rigid interpretation of WIkipedia's rules that mean that some of its editors feel justified in making changes that make Wikipedia inaccurate and partial. And that conflict cannot really be resoved here, can it? NewPolitician (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The conflict cannot be resolved if you refuse to provide sources, no. — Czello (music) 11:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I provided Wikipedia as a source. Obviously not reliable, wouldn't you agree? NewPolitician (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia — Czello (music) 11:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So what's the point of Wikipedia if it's not reliable? NewPolitician (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That it points the reader to reliable sources to verify the Wiki's content. Cabayi (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is a content aggregator, not a source itself. It's up to readers to evaluate the sources for themselves. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please cite a reference for that rather odd claim. Wikipedia is a "pedia", and if its not that then it's running under false pretences NewPolitician (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:CIRCULAR. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You gravely misunderstand conflict of interest. You are here as a representative of your party- by your own admission. You need to make the formal conflict of interest disclosure on your user page now. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no conflict of interest if Wikipedia isn't supposed to be accurate, impartial, or reliable anyway! NewPolitician (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no conflict of interest if Wikipedia isn't supposed to be accurate, impartial, or reliable anyway! NewPolitician (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your user page statement is sufficient, thank you. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia also makes no claim of being impartial. If reliable sources are not impartial, that will be reflected in Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What you're telling me about Wikipedia is not what the general public expect, and not what the founder wanted Wikipedia to be. NewPolitician (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia claims to have a neutral point of view, which does not mean it is "impartial". Vladimir Putin would probably agree we are not impartial if he read Vladimir Putin or Russian invasion of Ukraine. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been unable to find out where to take this dispute to for resolution, so I have emailed the Wikipedia legal people to aks them to ook into it. Preventing someone from providing an electorate with accurate information about candidate names in an election is not something Wikipedia should be doing. NewPolitician (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're slowly arguing yourself into the position everybody has being trying to show you all morning.
    "Providing an electorate with accurate information about candidate names" - how is anybody to know your information is accurate if you refuse to provide reliable, verifiable, independent sources for it?
    Also, let me save you the wait for a reply, Wikimedia Legal does not make content decisions. If you read section 230 you'll understand why. Cabayi (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I provided accurate entries, correcting someone else's omissions. Others then either deleted them or changed them to be inaccurate. There's clearly something wrong there, isn 't there?
    Are you suggesting I go ahead and sue Wikipedia? They'd probably take a bit of notice then! 78.146.47.237 (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I expect someone to do a tiny bit of checking before deleting someone else's contributions. After all, the first someone does not have a right to just delete arbitrarily, that is not helpful at all. 78.146.47.237 (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are very, very close to being blocked for legal threats, WP:NOTHERE, or both, or not listening to us. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it's you who are threatening me. not the other way around! 78.146.47.237 (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not threatening legal action against you or Wikipedia. I am threatening to stop the disruption you are bringing to Wikipedia if you do not do so yourself. Maybe you should be out campaigning for votes, not on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was not me that disrupted Wikipedia, it was whoever it was who deleted my corrections NewPolitician (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Czello (music) 13:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024[edit]

Stop icon
You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.
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 ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 14:50, 9 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).

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

Request reason:

This is silly. I corrected Wikipedia and ended up blocked and with my corrections deleted. The corrections had meant that Wikipedia no longer omitted 26 candidates from my party and so was no longer politically biassed in its candidate lists for the July 4 election. The deletions reversed all that. So someone needs to correct those deletions

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Acroterion (talk) 16:15, 9 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.

Do you unequivocally withdraw your previous threats to take legal action against Wikipedia and/or its contributors and promise to not make such threats in future? Have you read Wikipedia's rules on providing reliable sources for each edit you make and promise that you will do so in future? Can you confirm that you have read and understood Wikipedia's policy on editing with a conflict of interest and will endeavour to avoid doing so? 90.251.20.238 (talk) 16:18, 9 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).

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

Request reason:

No threat was made, it would have been ridiculous to do so anyway. Your children simply misinterpreted what I wrote. I couldn't find where to complain about their behaviour, and could only find Wikipedia's legal team. So I emailed them with a request to look into this matter and I informed the children that I had done so. Anyway, the point is, by omitting 26 candidates all from the same party, Wikipedia is being politically biassed. That's not what the founder wanted. Someone, it doesn't have to be me, needs to correct the bias.

Decline reason:

Making a personal attack against editors demonstrates that you have no intent of contributing collegially and within Wikipedia's guidelines. Nor have you either made a commitment against any future legal threats or a statement that you have read and understand WP:RS. —C.Fred (talk) 16:45, 9 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Ok Phil, thanks for your interaction, and I won't waste more of your time except to say this: Please correct the political bias that has developed in Wikipedia's lists of candidates for the July 4 general election. It might not make a big difference to the election, but it can hardly be good for Wikipedia's reputation to retain the bias

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. Please don't abuse the unblock template in this manner. Yamla (talk) 17:10, 9 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not abusing anyone or anything. I am requesting that Wikipedia correct its political bias in its lists of candidates in the July 4 general election. And there is no other place for me to make my request than here. If you cannot handle this request, please pass it on to someone who can.

Decline reason:

{{subst:User gives no indication they won't continue the same fights if unblocked, and this is not a request to do so. TPA yanked, which I probably should have done at the start.}} Star Mississippi 17:29, 9 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.

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Star Mississippi 17:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a note of clarification, while blocked, the only thing you should have been doing on your talk page was requesting to be unblocked or otherwise communicating about your block. You could not solicit other editors to make edits for you, nor could you discuss content (outside of the context of your behaviour that let do you being blocked). —C.Fred (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NewPolitician&oldid=1228153150"