User talk:81.2.97.151

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] English Democrats

Thank you for your two messages. You appear to have totally missed the whole point of adding the citation tags, with your "I'll be happy to let you know where the information is aroung the internet - try using Google" and "how hard are you trying to find Citations around the Web? If you try Google, you will find all the details on the English Democrats site are true." comments. It is not my responsibility to find those sources, nor is it about "truth" as such. The onus is on the user (whether registered or like you an IP user) who adds anything to wikipedia to source the material. If material is added that is unsourced then those tags can and very often do get added. It is not however the responsibility of other users to check on google to find a verifiable source, as you wish me to do. If you or anyone else adds information to that article then it should be sourced by that person. That is standard wikipedia policy. In addition, many users choose to simply remove information that is added unsourced. However, I chose to add the tags as they are a way of reminding and notifying users that sources are required. It might help if you read the various wikipedia policies about editing wikipedia before posting messages asking other users to source material. Please see WP:1SP, WP:HOW, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV.

Also when you talk about the English Democrats article I note you refer to it as a site. For instance, "Citiation Requirements English Democrats Site". I should point out that the English Democrats page is not at all an English Democrats "site", it is an article on wikipedia which falls under the same guidelines as every other article, in that anyone can edit it and that it needs to be presented from a neutral point of view and not to be treated as an advert for the topic of the article. Also, the "citation requirements" are not just for that article, they are the standard requirements for every article on wikipedia. I really would recommend you to register as a user as it gives you far greater usage of the site, whilst also being more private, because at present your IP address is available for all to see, whereas registered users IP address is not shown. And in addition there is far more that can be done when registered. I have the article in my "watchlist" which brings up all edits. That way if anyone vandalises any article, it can be dealt with immediately and removed, which I have done a few times on that article.

Please also note that when adding messages on talk pages, whether on user talk pages or article talk pages, the message should be added at the bottom of the page and not inserted randomly at the top of the page. Also all messages should be signed simply by adding four tildes ( 4 of these ~), even if you don't have an account. That way other users can see who has added the message and when it was added, and can reply easily. Please see WP:SIG. Have fun. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 02:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Further to your numerous edits on the English Democrats article. You have again added unscourced content and removed tags without actually providing any verification for the content. Please do not remove tags as they are there for a reason and unless you also proved a Reliable source the tags should not just be removed. In addition any content you add needs to be sourced. If you have a third party reliable source for the content you wish to add then please also include a source if you add content. If you need any help with adding sources then let me know and I can add the source for you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit to English Democrats Party (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, English Democrats Party. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Articles are not intended to be used for users to leave messages for other users. As I said above, if you have a third party source (and note it really does need to be a thrid party source) then jut leave a message on here if you wish with the URL and I can have a look for you. I have no desire to stop information being added to the article, but it needs to be sourced. I have before now tried to search online for information to include especially about the London Mayor. What I will do though as soon as I can is google it and see what I can find. Then if there is a relaible third party source I will add the content in for you. But please do not remove tags without providing sources.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to English Democrats Party constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks Astral (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC))

  • Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:Tangerines, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. King of the NorthEast 01:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaving comments like "Are you real or a computer" on my talk page isn't how to engage someone in discussion, especially when I have actually just spent time trying to find a source for Matt O'Connor being the EDP London Mayor candidate, which I have found and am about to add to the article for you. As you will also notice it is also numerous other users who are reverting your edits. I will add the content about O'Connor to the article (correctly sourced). However please refrain in future from such comments.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

For your information I have found a third party source for Matt O'Connor being the EDP candidate for London Mayor and I have added it into the article. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 02:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn' know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments

This comment of yours on the EDP talk page, "I suspect that you are trying to discredit the English Democrats for political reasons" which I have answered on there, needs further comment in here. There are now 19 sources included on that article backing up the content on there. Every single one of those sources has been either added by me or expanded upon by me. I have worked on that article quite a bit and spent a fair amount of time doing so at various points to ensure the article is of a reasonable standard. And also to ensure that there is sourced content as without it as you have seen tonight, content either gets deleted or tags added. Yet you spent a lot of time tonight removing tags which simply messes up the article. Yet you didn't even try to explain why you were removing the tags. Presumably just because you didn't like the tags being on there. Those tags help the article, whether or not you accept that, as they are a reminder to users that sources are required. For a while the article had been vandalised and I kept removing it. Also other users who disagree with much of what the EDP stand for were editing it with some adding insulting comments, again I removed all of them. When you left the above message you clearly didn't notice, which is very clear if you check, that I support English independence, and that I support the call for an English parliament whilst also agreeing with the EDP that there should be a voice for England in UK politics and a party that puts England first in the same way the likes of the SNP do in Scotland for instance. I have closely followed the "Campaign for an English Parliament" for many years. And whilst that might not be something that the EDP supports I am very sympathetic to the EDPs cause. However I try to keep my views out of editing wikipedia as this is not the place to do so. And your insulting other users especially one who wants to improve that article so that it is of a decent standard as you have done tonight won't help anything one iota, especially not the EDP and how it is viewed.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 03:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have placed the information to hand on the disscussion page, I hope it is of use 81.2.97.151 (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Message

Thank you for your message. Unfortunately I live nowhere near Slough and would not be able to attend. I am quite sure that EDP members are perfectly "normal"; I have never inferred, nor thought, otherwise. Thanks. Also as you will see on the EDP article I have gone through the links you gave. Some were already in the article and I have added the ones I can. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dartford

No idea what you mean by it has been taken down again, as the section is still there where I moved it to after expanding it, within the EDP article.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EDP

Firstly, please try to remain civil when dealing with other users of wikipedia. I have never at any point made any comment about you, yet you have again chosen to throw quite frankly childish insults at me. Comments such as "Knob" in your edit summary and, "what kind of knob are you, " are simply not acceptable, will do you no favours whatsoever, nor do the EDP any favours, nor will you end up getting any help with that article from any users, never mind just me. Please have a look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Calling someone a "Knob" is not how a political party representative should be behaving, no matter what my edits.

As for the message you left on my user talk page, you seem to have a misunderstanding of not only how wikipedia works (as evidenced by your removing some tags) but also by your comments about my keeping an eye on the EDP article.

So to reply to your message,

You: Dear Tangerine - a few months ago, we agreed that you were going to "Look after" the English Democrats Wikapedia Page, to ensure that it had no "Verfication" tags on it.

You have not done any work on this

Why is this ?

Reply As I said above you seem to misunderstand about wikipedia. Ity is a voluntary project which users from all over the world can and do contribute to. Ifyou put content onto wikipedia then any editor can and do edit it. Believe it or not users do get sidetracked into doing other things on wikipedia, and I did a while back notice something you had posted on the discussion page, but got sidetracked. Did you leave a message on my talk page informing me that you had sourced content?

You: We are now approaching a serious Election, and if you can't keep the page update, then please keep off of it.

The fact that you will not use e-mail, is of great concern

Reply email has nothing to do with wikipedia. All discussion can and should take place on wikipedia, in public. As for this "then please keep off it", please read this article, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. You would do well to read it in full.

If you are serious in your support for English Nationalism then please e-mail Secretary@EngDem.org.

Reply please do not canvass for support. I said I am sympathetic toward the EDP and how I deal with that away from wikipedia is up to me, not you.

You: We do not want any "Verfication" tags on this page, as it makes it look untidy and not looked after, it has to be to the same standard as the Conservatives, Labour, or UKIP, or we will find someone else to do the job.

reply. You really, really don't get wikipedia it would seem. There is no-one "doing a job" for you at all. Simply editors editing articles. You could have someone from Japan or the USA or any other country editing the article if they wanted to do so. Also, by "verification" tags do you mean "citation needed"? No idea what you mean otherwise. Secondly, even though I did at first restore the "refimprove" tag; as you can quite clearly see, I immediately reverted my own edit as the article does not need that tag now. As for this, "we will find someone else to do the job." again you totally miss the point of wikipedia. Neither you personally nor the EDP own that article. I simply keep the article in my watchlist along with hundreds of other articles. Edits on the article and on the diuscussion page where you left comments can and do get missed. Also as I have explained above there is no "job" whatsoever. I can and will continue to edit the article. Had you left me a message on my user talk page saying that you had provided verifiable sources on the articles talk page, and then if I didn't reply reminded me, then I could have dealt with it. But to make a personal attack shows your true colours. I will continue to edit the article, and try and improve it though regardless of your insults, as that is what users of wikipedia do, and as I have already said articles are not "owned" by anyone, they are there for all to edit. But please bear in mind that I will not tolerate any further outbursts such as calling me a "knob". Finally chill out, as many other users would have reported you for the personal insults and the "keep off the article" threat. You would also as I have told you before be better registering on wikipedia.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The EDP talk page

Having now had a chance to look at the EDP article talk page, there is one link on there to an electoral commission website. However, as you don't bother to sign your messages it is not clear when you left that message. The massive list in that message though gives nothing that is even slightly easy to transpose onto the article, it is just a huge long list. The message immediately above it (Where the English Democrats Stood in 2006) provides no sources whatsoever, just a huge long list. I have missed some of the messages above that which did provide sources. However they are from back in January. Had you simply left a polite message reminding me about them a while back then I would have had a better chance to add them, instead of two months later, just calling me a knob.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit reverting one of the edits I made on the English Democrats Party article could very easily be taken as both vandalism and using wikipedia to make a point, both of which are against wikipedia policy. On what basis do you think it is improving the article by removing perfectly valid wikilinks to Internet television and Scottish National Party? Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And finally two things: Firstly, do you seriously think that I would wish to email you after this - " what kind of knob are you, this informatino is on the dicussion page" when you have misunderstood what verification means, and you then go on to ask me to email you? As I have already told you at least twice, discussion of the article, it's contents and how to improve the article should be done on talk pages on wikipedia, not in emails. Regardless of which I would never email someone when they have just called me a knob. I would suggest you read these articles and then contribute to wikipedia. WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:CITE, WP:VER, WP:RS, WP:HOW and WP:BETTER. And secondly a point you also seem to miss is that I could very easily have placed a "conflict of interest" (COI) tag at the top of the EDP article, (see WP:COI) and any other user could at any time add that tag, but I choose not to.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Futher citations

I note that a request for verfication has been re-request on the 2005 General Election result to confirm the "claim" that "Garry Bushell represented the high point" - as the complete English Democrats results have been linked to from two sources at Keele Univeristy and the Electoral Commission it is hard to understand why anyone with half a brain cannot scan through less then 30 results - how else can this be proven ??????????????

[edit] Your Editss

" Your edit reverting one of the edits I made on the English Democrats Party article could very easily be taken as both vandalism and using wikipedia to make a point, both of which are against wikipedia policy. On what basis do you think it is improving the article by removing perfectly valid wikilinks to Internet television and Scottish National Party? Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)"

Your edits, are those of an ill informed person, who shows little initiative to resolve problems.

Your edits have to be considered to be vandalism, as you consistently undo edits from those who actually know what is going on in the party.

[edit] April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page English Democrats Party do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.   Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: 'youtube\.com' (link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REh8oNINUXY&eurl=http://easishop.com/ourlondon/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image or a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

[edit] Link to the Party Political

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REh8oNINUXY&eurl=http://easishop.com/ourlondon/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

[edit] May 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Free England Party. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)