User talk:175.139.7.160

July 2016

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Ruth Smeeth. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This is Paul (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Ruth Smeeth. This is Paul (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Craig Murray's blog is not a reliable source. This is Paul (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Blogs are not considered as reliable sources. Add this information again without a suitable reference again and I will report you to WP:ANI for adding poorly sourced material. FYI, a reliable source is something like The Independent, The Guardian, The Times, BBC News or The Daily Telegraph. If none of them are mentioning this then it isn't something we should be mentioning either. This is Paul (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

For other editors, this discussion concerns a continuation of activity from the following ip address 175.136.156.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) This is Paul (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS

There is not a deliberate and ongoing attempt to control anything. You're edits are not being removed because of their content; they're being removed because of their source. Something like a blog is not considered a reliable source. That's just the way things work.

There is no conspiracy; but there are rules. Guidance for what is considered a reliable source can be found at WP:RS.

If you have questions, feel free to ask here or at my talk page. TimothyJosephWood 22:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Your recent editing history at Ruth Smeeth shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

On the dispute on editing the Ruth Smeeth page, the facts are as follows. Ruth Smeeth has put out a statement on her website stating that a speaker at an event had accused her of being part of a "media conspiracy" and that this constituted an anti-semitic trope. Smeeth placed those words in inverted commas in her statement and this is widely understood to represent a direct quote. Video footage of the event shows, clearly, that the speaker, Marc Wadsworth, did not utter those words,or even either one of those words. That video footage is available on the website of The Independent newspaper, in an article entitled "Labour activist who berated MP Ruth Smeeth says he did not know she was Jewish and denies Momentum links". This article is included as cited source 6 in the Ruth Smeeth page, which is a point made by an editor other than myself. While the article does not specifically say that Smeeth's statement was factully incorrect, it is clear from watching the video of the event, which is included on the article page, that he said no such thing. That is a perfectly valid source for my edit which says that Ruth Smeeth's statement was factually inaccurate. Subsequent to my editing the article to say that, my edit was almost immediately reverted by the user This is Paul, on the grounds that I had not cited a proper source. I had initially cited an article on the blog of the senior British diplomat and former amabassador, Craig Murray. Murray's article includes a link to the video on The Independent as well as direct quote from Ruth Smeeth's statement and compares the two. He draws the explicit conclusion that Smeeth's statement was factually inaccurate. This is Paul objected that Murray's blog was not a valid source and suggested that I use more "credible" sources such as mainstream media, providing a list of what he considered to be "credible" sources, including The Independent. I subsequently removed the link to Muray's article and linked solely to The Independent article that included the original video footage of the event. That can be viewed here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-activist-who-berated-mp-ruth-smeeth-says-he-did-not-know-she-was-jewish-and-denies-momentum-a7111366.html

I also edited my contribution to read " Video footage of the event, however, shows that Smeeth's statement was factually inaccurate as the speaker, Marc Wadsworth, did not use the term "media conspiracy" or either of those two words individually." This makes explicit that my source is the video footage of the event itself, rather than the opnion of the journalist in the article. My source is entirely within the standards required for a Wikipedia edit and it also clearly supports my contribution that Ruth Smeeth's statement was factually inaccurate. This is Paul has repeatedly reverted my edit, offering a variety of changing reasons why he has done so. Initially, he claimed that my source was not reliable and, ultimately, in our discussion on this article on the Admin noticeboard he states "FWIW I personally don't believe she is directly quoting Wadsworth, but is instead using the quotes to define the term, which is something slightly different." He is now basing his reversions of my edit on his personal belief of what Smeeth meant, rather than the facts that I have cited and backed-up from a higly-creadible source. My edit should be allowed to stand.

---