Jump to content

User talk:90.246.12.230

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 2025

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm TonySt. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Antony James have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. —tonyst (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand. The information was factual and accurate. It had source information formatted correctly I hope, I did have to read up on how to format the citations for Wikipedia. 90.246.12.230 (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That article already discussed the criminal conviction of the individual. Government documents/websites are primary sources, where we try to summarize independent reliable sources. Please also see this page regarding charged terminology. 331dot (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes however, some key aspects of the charges were missing, along with his career as a police officer. Which in terms of the crimes committed is probably something you do not wish to omit. He openly admitted guilt in a court of law regarding grooming teenage girls to send him nude images, and also in the creation of them.
It may be best to have it in a separate section. As for government sources courts in the UK are separate from the government they are part of the crown. Independent sources in terms of court reports are often biased due to the news outlets whereas the CPS is a literally summarisation of the court transcripts. It's why when you see sheriff judgements they don't quote the guardian or the BBC but instead look at the actual case law and outcomes of the cases relevant to the subject. I fear I am going off topic in this reply so I apologise.
In short it may be better to have it as it's own section then again you'd probably roll that back so why bother, I feel as though you enjoy doing this and I wouldn't want to remove your joy because that is wrong, even if your rollbacks have given me a rather unsavoury opinion.
I should've logged in but if I did then you wouldn't have removed my contributions. On a serious note, I do believe that may have made an error and abuse of the rollback feature. 90.246.12.230 (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No joy about it, and it's kinda offensive that you think I would. You don't have to have an account, and that has nothing to do with this(I didn't revert your edit, though I agree with doing so). We do take WP:BLP, WP:BLPCRIME, MOS:LABEL, and other policies surrounding living people seriously. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The rollback of the changes made would appear that hindering factual information about a convict would be that it is protecting the perpetrator and not justice. The removal of facts is far more serious when evidence is provided. The citations that are not suitable are suitable on other articles of the same subject. Therefore I assume there needs to be more looked into especially as the rollback was unjustified in line with the wikimedias code of conduct. 90.246.12.230 (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unaware of the Code of Conduct having any relevance to this(I don't think that phrase means what you think it means). Reverting edits is a normal and common practice(see WP:BRD). If you can make a case based in Wikipedia policy for your proposed edits, you should do so on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However I do not believe this to be constructive, the vandalism performed has been reported. I do wish you all the best and do not let this disparage the continued efforts of the wikimedia group 90.246.12.230 (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

In short, you are not allowed to edit any page on Wikipedia related to the Arab-Israeli conflict unless you have an account that is 30 days old with 500 substantive edits. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that is fine. I was more querying that the page itself is missing some links that you would expect to either be in the main body or in the see also section. 90.246.12.230 (talk) 00:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article already does as you say, as pointed out to you. 331dot (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:90.246.12.230&oldid=1293425998"