User talk:Anti post-truth

Welcome to Wikispooks!

We're glad you came. There's lots to do.
The Community portal is probably the best place to start for new users. To add a Wikispooks search facility to your browser, go here. If you've got a topic you're itching to write about, just dive in. If you're not sure where to start, you can introduce yourself by editing either this page or your user page. Peter P (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2017 (GMT)

I have no wish to alter your prose, and even left the name of the 17 year old girl there (when removing the link to her FaceBook page). You are entitled to put down what you wish. But if you include in an article a mixture of fact, supposition and untruths thereby making the article a 'Post Truth, I think it is reasonable for me to point this out. User:Anti post-truth (talk)

Vandalism

This person has made a series of edits to articles that can only be described as vandalism. Either that behaviour stops, or the person should be banned from Wikispooks.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2017 (GMT)

This is completely untrue. The complainant has put on some articles that contain statements he knows (and I know) are completely untrue, and defame an individual or organisation. I have not altered the article. All I have added is that the article is a post-truth, and explained what this means. If he removes things that he knows to be untrue (or are just supposition), my 'addition' would then be unnecessary. The only 'change' I made to an article he wrote was when he put a link to a 17 year old girls FaceBook page. I removed that link. If he calls this 'vandalism' I suggest he relooks at the definition of the word. User:Anti post-truth (talk)

I have reversed all edits that place the 'post-truth' para at the start of a page. I suggest you remove those 'things you know to be untrue' and edit alleged suppositions accordingly. A wider issue which ought to have been addressed earlier is that Wikispooks is not a platform for 'parish-pump politics'. --Peter P (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2017 (GMT)

I have no wish to alter Patrick's prose, and even left the name of the 17 year old girl there (when removing the link to her FaceBook page). He is entitled to put down what he wishes. But if he includes in an article a mixture of fact, supposition and untruths thereby making the article a 'Post Truth, I think it is reasonable for me to point this out. Where I do, Patrick should make the necessary alterations (its not for me).

He has published links to these Post-Truth pages onto a large number of sites and sent them to the local press. Claims, for example, that certain people received £1000 each to leave a committee, or that someone else would only leave for £20000 are frankly ludicrous, but nevertheless are supposition. For example, I could claim Peter received £1000 from Patrick to remove my edits. This is equally ludicrous but still supposition. The problem with some of the postings of Patrick is that they could easily be pursued as libelous. I think the easiest way around this is to include that they are examples of Post Truth. Rest assured I will not abuse this site.

On the issue of this site not being for 'Parish Pump politics', I fully agree. But that is precisely what Patrick's posts to do with Clacton Labour Party are. All I am doing is ensuring they are put into perspective.

Finally, I have put back in the 'Post Truth' bit on the 5 articles I knew to be 'Post-Truths'. If you still feel this is wrong, I will reluctantly start deleting or altering those sections of Patrick's articles that are supposition or untrue. I do not want to restrict Patricks free speech. User:Anti post-truth (talk)

I have reverted those para-insertion edits again. I have also blocked your editing rights whilst this is sorted out. Specifically, it is NOT acceptable for a user-composed standard paragraph to be inserted in multiple articles. Where such flagging is needed, it should be done by inserting a suitable template. However, I cannot envisage a 'post-truth' template flag as appropriate for WS pages other than to illustrate the concept. Reverting edits and edit-war disputes are both distracting and time-consuming and I personally do not feel inclined to spend much more time on these 'parish-pump' matters. If someone believes they are being libelled, then I will certainly address specific alleged libels. --Peter P (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2017 (GMT)

Account unblocked

Editing rights restored --Peter P (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2017 (GMT)