Talk:Ellie Reeves

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)

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)

Hi Robin I have a dispute with Patrick Haseldine on the content of this page. Patrick has amended the changes I made under the heading “Labour First”. The original paragraph I wrote referred to the *faction* as “anti-Corbyn”. Those quoted words came from a cited article and referred to the faction. I also noted that Luke Akehurst is the National Secretary of Labour First. Mr Haseldine has changed it to describe Mr Akehurst as “anti-Corbyn” but this is a change to the allegation and not what the quote refers to. He has also arbitrarily removed citations that improve article quality. He does not address the point above except for the assertion that three citations is sufficient. I request permission to restore the correct meaning and the citations. MHN (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2018 (GMT)

Clarification of Editorial policy

User:Patrick appears to operated within the letter of the policy, but outside of its intended spirit - so I've just tweaked the General courtesy section of the Wikispooks:Editorial Policy to clarify it:-). It now reads: "if you revert someone's edits, you are recommended either leave an explanation on that page's talk page or on the user's page. At a very minimum, use the comment box to explain the reversion." He did leave a note "You can say what you like on your website, MHN, but not on WikiSpooks" but this is hardly an explanation. Accordingly, more specifics are in order.

As far as references go, more is better than less, since they're small and help establish credibility or give new perspectives. References are preferred to long third party quotes. There's little point if they all say basically the same thing, but in general I wouldn't consider 4 references too many, provided they gave different angles and were worth reading their own right. -- Robin (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2018 (GMT)