Jackie1945

March 2011

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Local Government Ombudsman, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 13:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

i do not understand why the information about the Coventry office was defamatory when i possess the paperwork which confirms everything which is written. This was one of Jane Martin's first cases. it is only one experience and others may have had very positive experiences which could also be posted. many people feel that the LGO service is sub-standard. i do not understand why people should not be able to learn from another's negative experience. Would it be acceptable if i put in the Criticism section, "For more information please Google, Coventry Ombudsman's Office is unfit for purpose"Jackie1945 (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The wording above makes it very clear: you inserted "unsourced defamatory content into an article". Your personal experience is not a reliable sources, and it cannot be included here, especially when it takes the form of criticism of a living person. Wikipedia is not a user review site, it is an encyclopaedia, though what you wrote would not even be appropriate on a user review site let alone here. I'm very sorry to hear you're not happy with the LGO, but posting your complaints on Wikipedia will not get you anywhere. If you want to help other people, you could try to find some reliable sources that can be used to support the "Criticisms" section of the article. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 18:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I DO HAVE IRREFUTABLE PROOF THAT IN RESPECT OF THE CASE IN QUESTION IT WAS NOT HANDLED ACCORDING TO LGO GUIDELINES. I POSSESS THE EVIDENCE AND THAT IS A RELIABLE SOURCE BECAUSE I COULD PRODUCE IT AT ANY TIME FOR ANY COURT IN THE LAND AND MAY HAVE TO AT SOME TIME IF JANE MARTIN DECIDES TO TAKE ME TO COURT. I AM READY FOR THAT. I THINK IT IS WRONG THAT PEOPLE WITH POWER MANIPULATE THE ORDINARY PERSON. I MUST ASSUME THEN THAT I COULD NOT PUT, "For more information please Google, Coventry Ombudsman's Office is unfit for purpose" IN THE CRITICISMS SECTION EITHER. PLEASE TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT THAT WILL BE ACCEPTABLE. ALSO I HAVE JUST ASKED JANE MARTIN A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION QUESTION TO TRY TO ESTABLISH HOW OFTEN SHE HAS FOUND AGAINST A COUNCIL. WHEN AND IF SHE ANSWERS WILL IT BE ACCEPTABLE FOR THAT ANSWER TO BE INCLUDED IN WIKIPEDIA. THE SOURCE FOR THAT WILL STILL ONLY BE ME. AN ENCYCLOPAEDIA SHOULD BE ACCURATE AND IT IS NOT ACCURATE TO SAY THAT THE LGO IS ALWAYS IMPARTIAL. DATA ABOUT A FAILURE TO BE IMPARTIAL WILL ALWAYS ONLY BE IN THE HANDS OF INDIVIDUALS. IT IS HARDLY LIKELY TO BE PUBLISHED ANYWHERE. I HAVE TO ACCEPT YOUR STANCE BUT I WOULD BE GRATEFUL IF YOU WOULD SAY WHETHER OR NOT IT IS APPROPRIATE TO DIRECT READERS TO ANOTHER SITE AND WHETHER OR NOT I COULD INCLUDE THE F OF I REQUEST PLEASE. Jackie1945 (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)