Inset Days
Andrew Gosden
editThank You for your contribution to the Andrew Gosden article. Please, before you delete or undo something can you please check that your assertions are supported by a verifiable source. Both Vice and The Times state that Andrew had a phone aged 10-12. ("He had a couple aged ten to 12," says Kevin). If you have a verifiable source that says he lost his phone months before he disappeared please cite it to improve the page rather than simply deleting well sourced information which detracts from quality of the page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
Nacentaeons (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- I am aware of the verifiability guidelines. In fact, that is partly why I am reinstating this content. You are incorrect when you say both sources say that, as the Times article states clearly that he was given a new phone for his twelth birthday, and so the original content was fine as that is what it said. You can include the Vice source as well if you want, but do not delete the Times source and information that is verified by it. I've edited the text now so it includes the information from the Vice source and the Times source. Inset Days (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Find a source for the assertion that he lost his phone a ‘few months’ before his disappearance. This is not stated in either the Vice or Times article. If it’s a fact it’s a fact but it is only speculation or rumour unless you can back it up. Wikipedia is only interested in whether it’s verifiable or not. This assertion is not verifiable ‘yet’. Nacentaeons (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well yes okay you can get rid of when it says 'a few months', but you can't get rid of the statement where it says he got a new phone for his twelth birthday. In any case, such a fact would imply anyway that he lost it months before he disappeared, or at least less than 24 months, as he disappeared aged 14. Inset Days (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Abolish Welsh Assembly article
editHey Inset Days
I'm sorry, but I have reverted your edits to the Abolish Welsh Assembly article. We have to be very careful on Wikipedia about edits to political party articles in the run-up to election days. As you can imagine, campaigners and supporters want to flood articles with promotional, positive, and campaigning material. Your additions seemed to be just that. Wikipedia is not a blog, so updates to campaigns should be kept to a minimum. Look at WP:NOTBLOG and WP:RECENTISM for rules on stuff like this. We also have WP:POLITICIAN too.
You can add material to this article. But just keep the campaigning material to a minimum. If the party wants to promote itself, use social media. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Doktobuk, yes fair enough, sorry for making the article too promotional sounding. I'm not really a supporter of the the party anyways (I'm more of a centre-left person myself), I just felt the article could have done with a bit of an update with stuff about the upcoming election. Probably didn't make it neutral enough though, what I added was positive remarks. Inset Days (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
March 2021
edit
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.