77.103.105.67

December 2017

Thank you for your interest in editing Wikipedia. Please note that we have a number of policies, which all articles have to comply with. In case of your edits, the relevant policies are on biographies of living persons and reliable sources. Unfortunately your edits did not comply with these policies, and this is why they have been reverted. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

So you'd rather falsehoods remain about a current MP?77.103.105.67 (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Please find information based on reliable sources. Unless this has been done, this is not falsehood but your personal opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not, you need to look at this more closely. What I'm trying to correct is based on an article of a source you are trying to prevent me from using, they've just not cited the source directly, but a local paper and a yahoo news story based on the sun source. I'm merely trying to cite the bit of the original source that contradicts the main jist of the unreliable source. If you don't like the sun as a source, remove the whole section, just because it's been filtered through a local paper and yahoo, doesn't make it less dodgy.77.103.105.67 (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I do not see how the local paper is based on the Sun. In any case, pls make this point at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It's based on the Sun because the quotes used in the local paper are cut up selective quotes that are quoted by the Sun.

The sun article says: A spokesman for Ms Shah said: "This was a genuine accident eight days ago that was rectified within minutes. To suggest otherwise is absolute nonsense.

The local paper says: A spokesman in her office said it was a “genuine accident” and to suggest otherwise was “absolute nonsense,” but did not offer her apologies.

Note how the local paper misses out the bit about 'rectified within minutes'. This is the problem. The problem is not my personal opinion. Please note The Sun is hostile to Naz Shah and only has included the rebuttal at the bottom of its article for the purposes of fairness and press regulation.77.103.105.67 (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually the Yahoo source cited quotes the line in my edit, so I've used that instead. It is of course likely true that the source of the Yahoo story is The Sun, but I just ask if you don't like that, please delete the whole section, not just my correction to it.77.103.105.67 (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I personally do not have any problems with your edit.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Thanks for bearing with me whilst I got my head round the problem.77.103.105.67 (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

June 2019

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Lisa Forbes (politician). While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. 94rain ^Talk 06:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hi. It seemed a malicious edit at 5am in the morning to the page of an MP elected only a hour or two earlier. I saw it on a webbrowser running on a tablet, which showed no link to the talk page, and wikipedia seems to absolutely refuse to serve the desktop version of the website to that device, even when I ask the browser to specifically request it and edit out any reference to the mobile site from the URL. As expected it seems that the talk page is empty anyway, so I'm not sure how that would have helped. The person making the problematic edit has not used the talk page.

Please note that the page is of a person that's in the top national news headlines today, so there was a sense of urgency.77.103.105.67 (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

---