Newsnet

Philip Hammond

You could not be more mistaken. My political views have nothing to do with it and it is wrong of you to suggest that they do. What I pasted back in was was not the unsubstantiated allegation itself, only a report of the fact that this allegation had been made; together with its rebuttal, in the form of Hammond's answer to it. You have now deleted the reference to the BBC clip which, until you removed it, would have enabled readers to see for themselves his robust response to the false claims. Note that he does not deny transferring the shares. What he points out is that the transfer had nothing to do with taxation, but was simply normal practice when somebody becomes a government minister. This was spelled out in the fair and balanced text that you have now deleted, so anyone who has heard of the allegation, but did not see the TV broadcast in which he rebutted it, cannot now see from the article that the allegation was unfounded.

The other paragraph you deleted is not an allegation at all, it is a statement of fact, which is that he was accused of flippancy for a remark about suicides. The fact in question was properly sourced with a citation to The Daily Telegraph, which is a WP:RS. To suggest that the inclusion of this paragraph constitutes a violation of Wikipedia policy against unfounded assertions about living people seems to me quite preposterous. Again, this has nothing to do with my views; as it happens, I agree with what he said about railway suicides. -- Alarics (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

PHILIP HAMMOND: RESPONSE FROM NEWSNET

Alarics - thank you for your comments. I don't believe we will agree on your first paragraph. If an unfounded, unproven and potentially malicious allegation is published and re-published about a person it is hardly being fair to that person for the publisher to claim that he has, in some way, "balanced" the allegation by appending that person's denial. It is the original false allegation and the repetition of that false allegation which tends to damage the reputation of the person involved. The repetition of the denial only serves to foster the idea that there is "no smoke without fire". In this case there was neither.

The second Wikipedia paragraph at issue began with the words:- "Following the same TV debate, Hammond was accused of "callous flippancy" in having commented that people committed suicide on the railway tracks at Wimbledon with "monotonous regularity", causing inconvenience by affecting the reliability of the service."

The words "Following the same TV debate...." tend to suggest that this issue was also one raised on the same edition of the BBC TV programme "Question Time" - whereas in fact the subject never arose on this programme. No attribution or citation was given in Wikipedia in respect of the original source of these comments.Newsnet (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The latter point was cited to The Daily Telegraph ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/8083002/Transport-secretary-faces-anger-over-flippant-remarks-on-suicides.html ), which is a "reliable source" in Wikipedia terms. -- Alarics (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

RESPONSE 2 Wikipedia would be justified in regarding The Daily Telegraph as a "reliable source" on stories originated by The Daily Telegraph. However you may have noticed that in this case the original story is not one originated by The Telegraph itself. The Telegraph text refers only to "an interview" (i.e. not one of their own). The original source of that interview is not cited.Newsnet (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Cardiff candidate

Newsnet - thanks for the info, I've just changed "Green Party" to "Green Party of England and Wales". Could you find a source for me, please? I've searched Google and Twitter and can find no proof that he's actually standing. It may be removed (by me or someone else) if there's no citation. Cheers doktorb _words^deeds 11:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah cool, thanks for that. If you go to "Cite", you can just add the newspaper citation in there. I've put him in ballot paper order, that's the usual way with Wikipedia at the candidate stage. Thanks for the help, by the way, always good to see people contributing doktorb _words^deeds 11:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey don't worry about it, there's all manner of silliness on party names here (check out "Communist League"!). Hope to see you around more pages doktorb _words^deeds 12:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey again. Thanks for the note. By convention - as ever with Wikipedia, there's not much written down - the summary box prior to polling day is for parties who got at least 5% of the vote at the most recent general election. doktorb _words^deeds 21:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Cardiff Airport

Hello doktorb. I wonder if I could ask you for some advice please? I seem to have inadvertently stepped into a tit-for-tat row between two Wikipedia posters who seem to be taking it in turns to modify and then unmodify each others paragraph in the Wikipedia Cardiff Airport page. Today I added a section on the early history of the airport, properly referenced to Hansard, only to find it taken out as the two quarrelling posters undo each others entries. The pair at odds with each other are 212.159.93.138 (talk)‎ and 83.193.227.170 . What does Wikipedia usually do in these circumstances when you have two anonymous contributors slugging it out between each other? All advice gratefully received. Kind regards Newsnet (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey. I can see there's been some edit warring. You can tell them about WP:3RR, which means that editors shouldn't edit-war. If there's any evidence or citations you can use with your edits, you're winning the argument. Be careful that you're not edit-warring yourself. doktorb _words^deeds 19:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Doktorb Yes I take your point. Thanks as ever for your prompt and courteous advice Newsnet (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Profiles

Hey Newsnet. Yeah, if there's anything worth adding, put it in. Be careful though - we tend not to put in full bios, because if they are worth paragraphs of text they'd have articles of their own, so keep things tight and relevant. Watch out for campaigning slogans. As you can imagine, now is the time for usually anonymous IP addresses to add slogans, promises and links to YouTube videos in the mistaken belief that thousands of voters read Wikipedia looking for election material. Not only is this sort of thing not allowed round here generally, it might fall foul of electoral law, and by and large it would fall foul of the bias/undue influence policies. A good place to look would be Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008, where the 26 candidates presented an unprecedented challenge for us, but did enable the candidates info to be fleshed out as much as it was felt appropriate. If I find any info for Cardiff's candidates - with citations, of course - I'll join you in fleshing some of those sentences. doktorb _words^deeds 18:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Hello Doktorbuk. I've added info on candidate Luke Nicholas which I think completes the set. There is, by the way, criticism of Dr Bablin Molik for constantly using the appellation "Doctor" in her literature which, it's claimed, misleadingly implies she is a medical doctor (i.e. an MD) whereas she is only a PhD. I don't know what we do about that.Newsnet (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

George Entwistle

Hi Newsnet, I first marked the issues raised by the edit [1] and eventually replaced it with the previous version and warned the editor User_talk:90.196.229.245 according to policy WP:BLP. I do not welcome your comment [2] as it may be seen as a personal attack WP:NPA. Also, your comment [3] is a further accusation - the term "Thatcher-era" is from the BBC (e.g.[4]), clearly not a bias. This disruption must stop now. While I'm here, the username Newsnet is the name of a UK TV company so against policy WP:CORPNAME - you will want to follow the instructions there. Widefox; talk 03:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The politics between media companies and the BBC does not interest me, OK? In reply to this [5] I've already asked you to stop this disruption. I will leave the topic of your username for others. Widefox; talk 13:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. I saw how you edited or created George Entwistle, and I noticed that the username you have chosen, "Newsnet", seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of something other than yourself. Please note that you may not edit on behalf of a company, group, institution, product, or website, and Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are promotional or have the appearance of shared use. If you are willing to use a personal account, please take a moment to create a new account or request a username change that represents only yourself as an individual. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and remember that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. media / BBC POV / COI. per username board Widefox; talk 14:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The name Newsnet does not violate Wikipedia policy as it is not the name of any registered company, group, institution, product or website in the UK.Newsnet (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Your username, and especially the description on your user page, implied to me that you are editing on behalf of some organisation and gave a perception of trustworthiness, so, even though the name is not registered in the UK, I have to agree with Widefox. Sorry, but I only came to this page to check you out because one of your recent edits seemed too biased and inaccurate for the type of 'monitoring' and 'reporting' of UK 'current affairs and financial news', stated on your user page. Cymrodor (talk) 13:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Cymrodor. I assume, from your username, you are editing on behalf of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion. Please cite the edit you allege to be "biased and inaccurate" Newsnet (talk) 08:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Cardiff South

Hey. I'm on my Gg because my laptop is broken. So if you want to updat then that ya finee the article

Message

Hey Newsnet. Sadly my laptop interacted with a bottle of milk over the election period so I've been out of action for some time. It's good to see that the results pages have been updated so completely! doktorb _words^deeds 15:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries Doktorb. I can't take all the credit for the updates though. Others have done a very conscientious job on the voting statistics and the tables. Sorry to hear about your laptop. Biscuit crumbs are the problem with my keyboard (I have to turn it upside down every so often and give it a sharp tap). Hope to see you back in action soon.Newsnet (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Welsh Counter Terrorism and Extremism Unit concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Welsh Counter Terrorism and Extremism Unit, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

New Wales Coast Path WikiProject

As a member of WikiProject Wales, WikiProject Cardiff or an user who has contributed to Welsh articles we invite you to contribute to a new project, Living Paths!: articles, images, translations... Lonely Planet rated the coast of Wales "the best region on Earth" in 2012, yet there is a very low number of articles on the history and culture of places along the Coastal Path. This promises to be an exciting project as it gathers momentum with many Users joining in across the world.

If you are interested in training groups in Wales, please leave a message on the Talk Page. Let's make this WikiProject, like the path itself, the best on earth! And let's put Wales back on the map!

Cymrodor (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Welsh Counter Terrorism and Extremism Unit concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Welsh Counter Terrorism and Extremism Unit, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Welsh Counter Terrorism and Extremism Unit

Hello Newsnet. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "The Welsh Counter Terrorism and Extremism Unit".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Welsh Counter Terrorism and Extremism Unit}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

March 2016

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

• Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
• Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)