Talk:Andrew Rosindell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Joint highest vote share

This unverified claim about Rosindell getting the joint highest vote share at the GE of any Con MP is mildly interesting, but needs to be backed up by a source or deleted.

According to this, he is, by a tiny margin, the second Tory MP with the highest vote share.--Johnbull 01:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - have clarified that comment with the reference. The remark about the popularity of his campaign in an 'Essex Man' area needs citation or removal. Annexed (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Parking Controversy

I think in light of the conservative policy towards the disabled and controversy surround ATOS etc, this was/is a notable inclusion. Although after I raised the issue with him on Facebook and he blocked me(!), I wouldn't be surprised if he removes this addition from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.107.70 (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Reminder to talk page posters

Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please keep this in mind when commenting. This policy applies everywhere, even on talk pages. Please, no more allegations without providing published references. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Comments

I have removed comments you described as unsourced speculation but have noted some variability in standards - many articles have hearsay in them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptPeacock15 (talk • contribs)

@CaptPeacock15: Can you list some examples? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure here are some examples from the article on the British actor and scriptwriter Jeremy Lloyd

He was lauded in America where they loved his patrician upper class depiction of an Englishman. (no reference)

A decision had to be made as to whether he would return to America for the start of the new season or remain in the United Kingdom and marry Miss Lumley. He never returned to America (no reference, Lloyd is listed as living in Tennessee)

Lloyd has been the subject of a persistent urban legend which claims that he had been invited to a dinner party at the home of Sharon Tate on the night that she was murdered by followers of Charles Manson. This was verified as true, not a myth, when the octogenarian was interviewed by Emma Freud on BBC Radio 4 Loose Ends on 10 December 2011.[1] (this is very important as the phrase urban legend is used to formally refer to witness knowledge that has no formal reference UNTIL he is claimed to have said it on a radio programme - suddenly informal knowledge has value !!)

Lloyd appeared in A Hard Day's Night and Help!, two films starring the Beatles, and also had a brief role in The Magic Christian, which starred Peter Sellers and Ringo Starr. Starr appeared in an episode of Laugh-In, recalling the films he and Lloyd were in together, while Lloyd looked at him as a stranger, saying "Sorry, you can't expect me to remember everybody." (no reference given for the quote) CaptPeacock15 (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Most of that text should have citations or be deleted. I will place the appropriate tag. Our goal is to improve Wikipedia's 4+ million articles, but with only a limited amount of volunteers, stuff like that slips through (regrettably too often). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There's two other sections that I've removed. JASpencer (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

someone has made this article much more positive

Someone has removed much of the negative additions to this. It's clearly been done now Rosindell is campaigning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.127.208 (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Unlike you I'm not an anonymous contributor and my record of balancing edits across a large number of MPs of all parties is available for scrutiny, including trimming the fluffy positive comments about Rosindell. I even left in criticisms sourced to the Mail and Mirror which are generally not considered suitable sources for Wikipedia. Restored version that accurately claims that Rosindell blocked the wild animals in circuses bill, over revised version that falsely stated it was passed without a vote, and restored content outlining what was actually in his Private Members Bill Dtellett (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You're a conservative Shrill. Why you would include so much information for a failed bill?

Also, the fact I am an IP matters not according to wiki-standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.28.144 (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd have thought it was reasonably obvious why I restored the information you deleted; because it explained what Rosindell was actually trying to do with introducing the bill, which is pretty relevant to a biography of him since its a piece of proposed legislation he drafted. FWIW I happen to think it was a pretty pointless proposal, but it does illustrate Rosindell's priorities. I'll ask you the same question though; why were you so obsessed with the failed Wild Animals in Circuses Bill?

Your unwarranted accusation of bad faith would look a little less stupid if you knew the difference between shill and shrill :-) Dtellett (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I think his attitude towards circuses - that it's a British Institution is relevant in light of his previous role as Animal Welfare Secretary, in that he prioritises this over the general welfare of the animals..

Second, if you think it's relevant to see where his priorities lie, why would delete a). his voting patterns (for instance this man parks in a disabled parking space, votes against welfare increases for the disabled, but draws the highest expense claims of any MP).

Also, why so much excess detail on the failed bill - why not sum it more succinctly. Is it normal to have a significant chunk of an article dedicated to this?

Also == please do not refer to my edits as un-constructive again. This is a difference of opinion, you have no right to make such a claim.

And yet you feel you have the right to claim on my talk page that I am in the pay of the Conservative Party? Pretty laughable really given my likely voting intention.... and non Wikipedian writings really :-)

Your edits are un-constructive because they remove accurate, sourced information which is relevant to Rosindell's political obsessions, and introduce false claims like the circuses bill being "unanimously supported" when the linked source named other MPs that helped block it. That, like your false accusations that I have a conflict of interest over editing the page, is not a "difference of opinion". It's simply wrong. Dtellett (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You're a writer who owns a blog. Whoopy doo. You're deciding what's notable etc. How is that not opinion? You removed his previous voting patterns - that is relevant information as it shows his views.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Andrew Rosindell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081021145443/http://www.europeanfoundation.org:80/personnel.html to http://www.europeanfoundation.org/personnel.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071119031735/http://www.publications.parliament.uk:80/pa/cm/cmallparty/register/memi308.htm to http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/register/memi308.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Andrew Rosindell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051116000352/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk:80/news/articles/18389367?source=Evening%20Standard to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/18389367?source=Evening%20Standard&ct=5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150926143833/http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/unitedkingdomborderscontrolandsovereignty.html to http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/unitedkingdomborderscontrolandsovereignty.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101005225346/http://news.sky.com:80/skynews/Home/Strange-News/House-Of-Commons-To-Play-Host-To-First-Erotica-Dinner-Party-Sponsored-By-Tory-MP-Andrew-Rosindell/Article/201010115749665? to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Strange-News/House-Of-Commons-To-Play-Host-To-First-Erotica-Dinner-Party-Sponsored-By-Tory-MP-Andrew-Rosindell/Article/201010115749665

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Dog

Does anyone think more space should be given to Rosindells use of a dog as a campaign trick? He's apparently an ex-PR man, and it seems like his dog is certainly a prop he uses to appear as a man of the people (as he used it in Glasgow, Grays, and Romford when canvasing.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.83 (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

We are not interested in unsourced speculation such as "it is suspected by some" - We only want verifiable information from reliable sources - Arjayay (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No one has claimed it is « suspected by some ». Only that more research should be done. Goodness knows how you managed to make such a comprehension error... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.111.50.111 (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Clean up needed (Oct 2018)

This whole article reads as though it's been written either by the MP themselves or someone very close to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlemonday (talk • contribs) 14:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

alleged sexuality

This was discussed some time ago. Were any conclusions drawn.

I've just searched for Andrew Rosindell and got the subheading "British paedophile". I'm not a fan of Mr Rosindell or his politics (though I agree with his support for the Chagossians) but this is actionable. Meltingpot (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Meltingpot: Thank you so much for pointing that out. That subheading had been taken from the description on Wikidata, which had been vandalised two days ago. I fixed the Wikidata item and added a local short description template. Now someone who wants to vandalise the search subheading will have to edit this page directly, where he's likelier to get caught. (For a fuller explanation, see Wikipedia:Short description and WP:WikiProject Short descriptions.) Cheers, gnu57 14:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Voting in lead

The summary of his voting behaviour on social/civil rights issues should be removed from the lead unless secondary sources indicating their relevance can be found. Sourcing his voting on these issues to hansard records is not enough. See WP:PROPORTION for the relevant guideline. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that secondary sources to indicate the importance of him voting against furthering LGBT rights should be used to establish that it's significant enough for the lead section. I agree that Hansard records isn't enough. There is a secondary source, though, to verify that he has supported the re-introduction of the death penalty. I am therefore today trimming from the lead that he voted against civil partnerships and scrapping the Section 28 act, but I'm going to keep for the time being a more concise version of the previous text in the lead that he voted against bills furthering LGBT rights including same-sex marriage to allow further time for discussion of this on the talk page. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

 Note: Marking edit request template as answered per template instructions regarding discussions. It also appears that Kind Tennis Fan has  Partly done: the request aswell. —Sirdog (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Refs added. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)