Edjones1s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum

The 'Formal party policies' is lacking detail. It should be based on historical perspectives and current known policies. It should also reflect the fact that, for example, Plaid Cymru are on the one hand in agreement with Britain's membership of the EU, but it would prefer for certain aspects to be reformed. The current 'Formal party policies' gives the impression that some political parties have no interest of concern with reforming the EU. This list and page must be truly reflective. The level of detail needs to be more, and more focused on an accurate overview of party policies. Currently, it simply places them into a pigeon hole.

For this example, I refer to: http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/OS/OS14.php

At the moment it lacks clarity, accuracy and reliability, and seems to be written or edited by those who are in favour in remaining in the EU no matter what David Cameron achieves in his renegotiation.

Another point: colour and style of content:

Can the colour of the boxes for remain and leave be changed to something less associated with "go" (green), and "stop" (red)? Can they perhaps be #4268D1 colour HEX for remain, and #9F42D1 for leave?

I think anyone can deny the association of green and red in this context displays a bias on the authors behalf perhaps, regardless of the supposed inconsequential use of colour as what could be perceived as an indicator.

I can't see that we are going to get that unambiguous clarity until four to six weeks before the referendum, when the parties will make clear how they wish to persuade their supporters to vote. Meanwhile we have to go on the position of leading members - otherwise we remove the political section entirely. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC).

Welcome!

Hello, Edjones1s, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:INCOMPETENT

If you can't get a basic fact right ("Respect have never had an MP") then maybe you should consider whether you should be editing related articles. [1] Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Your quote was that "Respect have never, never held a seat at the House of Commons". That is just plain wrong. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I have never claimed that the BNP had elected MPs. I said on the article talk page that they had MEPs elected in 2009, which is correct. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

This reaction by User:Jmorrison230582 strikes me as quite OTT and I deprecate it. None of us are perfect. Please don't be discouraged from contributing to Wikipedia (but try to check your facts like we all say but don't always do!) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Jmorrison230582 -- User talk:John Maynard Friedman I appreciate the subtlety of the condition and of the situation, and for the need to represent facts in contexts, and I appreciate the point within the above guide. It is a delicate balancing act, which can lead to friction - the best response to this friction is to thank, and appeal for discussion. In my honest view, some items within society and culture are more notable than others purely on the basis of principle, hence my objection to this supposition, presented on this prominent platform. Define "notable". Well, in this case, (and excluding a preference to see some things less notable based on principle) I believe the definition is exemplified in Maynard Friedman's recent revision on 'notable', and so his definition: ~ did ever, & does the party mentioned have MPs ~. I suppose I should aim for balance. And not re-written history based on favoritism. We're all influenced by political views, but above this, we are all driven to ensure information is presented in such a way allowing the reader to reflect without being guided. Of course it must be fair, accurate, correct, consistent, and it must also be sensitive to context, and mention things which we may fundamentally disagree with, so much so that these things shouldn't even be presented, which is, of course - the wrong stance to take. Thanks for allowing me to share this on my first attempts... Sorry for the verbosity.