I read the news today
Welcome! edit
Hi I read the news today! I noticed your contributions to Coventry City F.C. and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Mattythewhite (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
[bogus warning removed]
I read the news, you are going to have to stop what you are doing: your edits likely violate the WP:BLP, and your sourcing is not adequate. You may discuss matters on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Drmies, can you give me more details please of what is meant by "bogus warning removed" I read the news today (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi - I've just seen this. Drmies wouldn't have known that you replied to them, because you didn't WP:PING him, but I can explain what [bogus warning removed] means - if you check the history of this page, you'll see that someone editing from an IP placed a vandalism warning here; Drmies removed it, and replaced it with his message.
- Hopefully you've seen the comments I've placed on the article's talk page. Your recent additions seem to be much more reliable sourced, so thank you for that. I can't help but notice that your editing interests seem to be quite focussed on this article, so I hope you don't mind if I ask you to declare whether you have any connection with the subject at all? In case you haven't read it, WP:COI discusses this. Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 13:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply - that is helpful and explains things clearly for me. I am new to Wikipedia and very much feeling my way. I came across the news story about the private prosecution involving the subject and thought I would see what was behind the story - hence my going by "I read the news" and from there join the Wikipedia community. I have no connection with the subject and my only motivation is to get involved with Wikipedia and edit fairly and accurately. I read the news today (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you User:Girth Summit. I read the news, thank you too. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Drmies and GirthSummit (blether) I wanted to ask about the use of primary sources and BLP. I now understand that mostly secondary sources should be used for BLP edits, but if a primary source comes from a highly reputable source, such as a report by a UK Government public body, would that be acceptable? I read the news today (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know exactly what we're talking about, but I'd start be saying there is not necessarily one answer for that. If, in the stubby article for Brandon Taylor (writer), there is an entry in the student registrar's log saying Taylor got his doctorate in biochemistry, a basic biographical fact, and we use that to cite it, I don't think many people would have a problem with it, even though it's not great. Now, if Taylor had lived 200 years ago, there would be even less of a problem with using a primary source for a simple biographical fact. But the more you move towards the present, and the more you move away from simple fact and it's about meaning and relevance, it becomes less and less acceptable to use primary sources. So in this case it really depends on what it is you are trying to source (and I think Girth Summit will agree). But the problem with this article (and I think User:JulianParge noticed this too) is that it is little more than a litany of factoids. There is no biography, no narrative--there's just all these little related snippets: here's a random quote comparing him to the Spice Girls, followed by something about stock value; and here he is a "significant stockholder", whatever that means, in some company verified by some website. So there's a bunch of things here that need serious improvement. We have a saying in Dutch: you can put a pretty flag (here, that official photograph) on a barge hauling mud (the article), but it's still a barge hauling mud--not a pretty sight. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'd agree with Drmies on the above. The article is a bit of a train wreck, and it will not be improved by adding yet more random facts about a private prosecution based on primary sourcing. If reliable media haven't seen fit to report on something, that's a good indication that it's not really WP:DUE in our articles - we might consider going to primary sources to get details to flesh out content based on secondary sources, but if it wasn't covered in the press we should leave it out. If you want to improve Wikipedia, and are interested in this subject, you could try improving the prose based on what you can glean from secondary sources; if your intention here is to let the world know about some negative aspects of the subject's life, and can only support them with primary sources, then you're not doing this for the right reasons and should leave the article alone. GirthSummit (blether) 08:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know exactly what we're talking about, but I'd start be saying there is not necessarily one answer for that. If, in the stubby article for Brandon Taylor (writer), there is an entry in the student registrar's log saying Taylor got his doctorate in biochemistry, a basic biographical fact, and we use that to cite it, I don't think many people would have a problem with it, even though it's not great. Now, if Taylor had lived 200 years ago, there would be even less of a problem with using a primary source for a simple biographical fact. But the more you move towards the present, and the more you move away from simple fact and it's about meaning and relevance, it becomes less and less acceptable to use primary sources. So in this case it really depends on what it is you are trying to source (and I think Girth Summit will agree). But the problem with this article (and I think User:JulianParge noticed this too) is that it is little more than a litany of factoids. There is no biography, no narrative--there's just all these little related snippets: here's a random quote comparing him to the Spice Girls, followed by something about stock value; and here he is a "significant stockholder", whatever that means, in some company verified by some website. So there's a bunch of things here that need serious improvement. We have a saying in Dutch: you can put a pretty flag (here, that official photograph) on a barge hauling mud (the article), but it's still a barge hauling mud--not a pretty sight. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you both. You will see from my latest posts that I am seeking to improve the narrative I read the news today (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
June 2020 edit
Hi I read the news today! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Jason Drummond that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia — it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Greyjoy talk 09:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Greyjoy for letting me know
Please see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jason Drummond vandalism. You can respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Important Notice edit
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Girth Summit (blether) 19:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi - I see that nobody has notified you about the sanctions above, so I've given you the notice above. I think that Jason Drummond still needs quite a bit of work to bring it into line with our WP:BLP policy, but please let me ask you stop stop adding anything that is only supportable by primary sources. Girth Summit (blether) 19:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 24 edit
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jason Drummond, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
You are adding an empty parameter at the end of cites: eg | }}. This gives a cite error: see Category:CS1 errors: empty unknown parameters. Oculi (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of Jason Drummond for deletion edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jason Drummond, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Drummond until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)