Difference between revisions of "Talk:Ellie Reeves"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Reply) |
(Request for administrative determination #1 Ellie Reeves.) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:Sure [[User:Patrick Haseldine|Patrick]] but what is the specific objection? The facts are true, not denied by the subject and clearly relevant to the site’s mission. Can you please give me an idea of how you feel it breaks the editorial rules? [[User:MHN|MHN]] ([[User talk:MHN|talk]]) 22:32, 5 March 2018 (GMT) | :Sure [[User:Patrick Haseldine|Patrick]] but what is the specific objection? The facts are true, not denied by the subject and clearly relevant to the site’s mission. Can you please give me an idea of how you feel it breaks the editorial rules? [[User:MHN|MHN]] ([[User talk:MHN|talk]]) 22:32, 5 March 2018 (GMT) | ||
::No comment!--[[User:Patrick Haseldine|Patrick Haseldine]] ([[User talk:Patrick Haseldine|talk]]) 23:32, 5 March 2018 (GMT) | ::No comment!--[[User:Patrick Haseldine|Patrick Haseldine]] ([[User talk:Patrick Haseldine|talk]]) 23:32, 5 March 2018 (GMT) | ||
| + | :::Hi [[User:Robin|Robin]] I have a dispute with [[User:Patrick Haseldine|Patrick Haseldine]] on the content of this page. Patrick has reverted the changes I made under the heading “Criticism Over Child Protection” and per his comment above, declines to give reasons. The allegations he has removed were cited and are not disputed by the article subject. In accordance with site policy we are supposed to explain our reasons. Because Patrick refuses to do so, I am not able to understand his reasoning. I would therefore ask your permission to restore the content or give reasons why not. I can provide additional information if necessary.[[User:MHN|MHN]] ([[User talk:MHN|talk]]) 08:02, 6 March 2018 (GMT) | ||
| + | |||
==Labour First== | ==Labour First== | ||
The changes you have made to the Labour First heading appear slightly mistaken. The sense of my text was that the *faction* is anti-Corbyn, whilst you have changed it to refer to Luke Akehurst being anti-Corbyn. Also you removed citations unnecessarily that suppported the contentions. Is there any rule against over referencing? [[User:MHN|MHN]] ([[User talk:MHN|talk]]) 22:41, 5 March 2018 (GMT) | The changes you have made to the Labour First heading appear slightly mistaken. The sense of my text was that the *faction* is anti-Corbyn, whilst you have changed it to refer to Luke Akehurst being anti-Corbyn. Also you removed citations unnecessarily that suppported the contentions. Is there any rule against over referencing? [[User:MHN|MHN]] ([[User talk:MHN|talk]]) 22:41, 5 March 2018 (GMT) | ||
:Three references are sufficient!--[[User:Patrick Haseldine|Patrick Haseldine]] ([[User talk:Patrick Haseldine|talk]]) 23:32, 5 March 2018 (GMT) | :Three references are sufficient!--[[User:Patrick Haseldine|Patrick Haseldine]] ([[User talk:Patrick Haseldine|talk]]) 23:32, 5 March 2018 (GMT) | ||
Revision as of 08:02, 6 March 2018
Reverting your edit
You can say what you like on your website, MHN, but not on WikiSpooks.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2018 (GMT)
- Sure Patrick but what is the specific objection? The facts are true, not denied by the subject and clearly relevant to the site’s mission. Can you please give me an idea of how you feel it breaks the editorial rules? MHN (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2018 (GMT)
- No comment!--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2018 (GMT)
- Hi Robin I have a dispute with Patrick Haseldine on the content of this page. Patrick has reverted the changes I made under the heading “Criticism Over Child Protection” and per his comment above, declines to give reasons. The allegations he has removed were cited and are not disputed by the article subject. In accordance with site policy we are supposed to explain our reasons. Because Patrick refuses to do so, I am not able to understand his reasoning. I would therefore ask your permission to restore the content or give reasons why not. I can provide additional information if necessary.MHN (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2018 (GMT)
- No comment!--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2018 (GMT)
Labour First
The changes you have made to the Labour First heading appear slightly mistaken. The sense of my text was that the *faction* is anti-Corbyn, whilst you have changed it to refer to Luke Akehurst being anti-Corbyn. Also you removed citations unnecessarily that suppported the contentions. Is there any rule against over referencing? MHN (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2018 (GMT)
- Three references are sufficient!--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2018 (GMT)
