User talk:25162995

Welcome to my talk page!

Please use the Reply button to reply to a message, or add topic (+) to start a new section.
If I have left a message on your talk page, please DO NOT post a reply here, instead, reply there.
- Mention me using the "Mention a user" button in the Reply box or type out {{ping|25162995}}.
- I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
If you prefer to manually edit the page to post:
- Use an accurate and appropriate heading.
- Indent your comment by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
- Sign your post with four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Searchlight

Searchlight is considered a reliable source for far-right issues. This was raised earlier on the talk page and reference made to previous discussions at the RS notice board. In any event if you dispute a citation then you should dispute it, NOT delete it. --Snowded ^TALK 22:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dispute over searchlight. however a third party self published website www.hopenothate.org.uk is not a reliable source but a third party website which claims to be affiliated to searchlight. The website is incredibly POV driven and is not a reliable source like the actual searchlight website. find the source from the searchlight website. i will remove it again and re insert ^{[citation needed]}. please do no revert unless you intend to add in a searchlight website source saying the same thing. ADD: also with regards too searchlight, the more i read about them the more i find that they are not reliable due to the nature of there shoulder rubbing with UAF considering that orginally they were part of the steering committee for them. what i am getting at is that if they are so reliable how can they be trusted considering that they have a clear Anti EDL POV due to the nature of their previous support for UAF. This is clearly a POV issue and anything added to the EDL website from Searchlight will be shown in a negative light and with a certain amount of POV which does not help make the article fair and balanced. Johnsy88 (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you check here you will see that Searchlight advertises itself as the magazine of the Hope not Hate web site so it is not a third party website making a claim to be affiliated. You are wrong in fact and should restore the previous position. If you want to dispute the reliability of Searchlight then you can do so at the reliable sources notice board, but on previous occasions it has been confirmed as a reliable source. Aside from that you know perfectly well that the leader of the EDL is a former BNP member, the other named leader signed BNP nomination papers. Sorry these are facts, if they portray the EDL in a poor light then so what? You are also edit warring again--Snowded ^TALK 23:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes however that is still a third party website of searchlight. if the times comes up with a source but puts it on a 3rd party website would it be accepted? no it would not. stop relying on 3rd party websites and use attributed sources because this is obvious double standards. and i have seen the RS notice board on Searchlight and the majority of the archived editors discussions reject it as a reliable source. and sorry but they are not facts snowded they are POV statements from from an organisation which once helped form the direction of the UAF which you full well know is completely opposed to the EDL which is clearly not going to help represent the article in a NPOV is it!? Johnsy88 (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the diff to the RS notice board where a majority of editors rejected Searchlight as a reliable source. --Snowded ^TALK 23:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about you go and troll through the discussion yourself on the RS archive because i have already done it once this week and you will see for yourself that it is considered contentious. what makes me laugh snowded is that you bang on about RS for the UAF page and when the most contentious and POV driven source comes up you use it for your own ends to support your POV whilst others are quite willing to actually work towards portraying all articles in a NPOV. As a highly educated man im actually genuinely surprised that you would resort to what appears to be apparent underhanded techniques to push POV. Is this really how you want WP to work? Johnsy88 (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just made a claim, back it up. You might also want to read [1] this article in one of the more right wing newspapers. i look forward to you including this material in the article to demonstrate your independence. Oh and lay of the personal attacks "underhanded" is not acceptable. --Snowded ^TALK 23:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you feel that searchlight is not POV driven with its articles towards the EDL??

The thing is Dave is that you really do clearly think i have sympathies for the EDL(and have done from day one) when what i am actually interested in is seeing them portrayed in the same light as any other political movement on WP because the whole point of WP is about building NPOV articles to inform the public and allow them to make their own mind up about the issue ,Not to shield them from thinking a certain way by what they may read. I feel the difference between myself and you is that you reject sources from the AP, The Times, ABC etc etc (just see the list on UAF DIS) and then bang on about searchlight which is very biased and driven by POV being a reliable source? who are you trying to kid with this clear and apparent POV pushing. And i will not apologise for saying that you are acting in an underhanded manner because for any outsider who is not TFD,Multi,or one of your other backers it would be apparent that you advise people to do one thing and do the complete opposite yourself Johnsy88 (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you can't provide a link to the RS discussion, probably because your statement was false. What you meant to say was that some editors opposed recognising Searchlight, but instead you made a silly claim that a majority thought so. Otherwise I am sorry but you are again being foolish in your claims above. I have not rejected the Times as a RS on UAF, but pointed out as have others that they only use the phrase "left wing" in one of more than forty articles and further that their are no academic or other sources. This is WP:WEIGHT which I think you don't understand (I am being charitable here, and assuming that you are not simply ignoring it as its inconvenient). Otherwise the community has determined that Searchlight is a reliable source, you can of course attempt to change that. You really are running at risk you know, your first instinct if you think you are in the right is to edit war not discuss, and you too readily engage in personal attacks. --Snowded ^TALK 06:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should be either at the article talk page or RSN. Johnsy88, you've hit 3RR. you'd better stay away from the page for a while. Dougweller (talk) 07:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blah Blah. ive heard this all before and you refuse to recognise any of my points above which i should have expected from you by now. Hopefully you live a long and happy life knowing that you are working in direct conflict with the freedom of speech. But then again going by your edit history on specific subjects im not surprised by this either Johnsy88 (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And doug, I hit 3rr because the above user has tried time and again to allow a source which is not reliable and is a 3rd party website that affiliates itself with Searchlight. Its like using WWW.TotalLies.com/thetimes as a reliable source because it has the times in the address bar. Johnsy88 (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Your recent editing history at Unite Against Fascism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Given your past history of edit warring I am putting this warning up now. Also you are using misleading edit summaries, omitting to mention your deletion of all party support for UAF. Please stop that and use the talk page. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry snowded. Ive learnt my lesson honestly i have governor! Please dont report me to the wiki police or i may run away and cry boo hoo Johnsy88 (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Snowden! why do you keep reverting my edits using your name. its almost like you have something to hide tut tut Johnsy88 (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]