| Revision as of 16:37, 24 March 2018 edit89.240.132.177 (talk) →House of Commons free speech news item: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:43, 24 March 2018 edit undoIcarosaurvus (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,072 edits →House of Commons free speech news itemNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| ::: Civility went out of the tubes, when individuals started posting in my talk pages saying I am biased and accusing me of being a sockpuppet. Most of these individuals do not have a Wiki account. It would be clearly explained if we can look at their edit histories. For me there are many editors who are too set in their mind on what is newsworthy and what is not. That can be disputed any way you see it and I am all set to challenge this.] (]) 16:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC) | ::: Civility went out of the tubes, when individuals started posting in my talk pages saying I am biased and accusing me of being a sockpuppet. Most of these individuals do not have a Wiki account. It would be clearly explained if we can look at their edit histories. For me there are many editors who are too set in their mind on what is newsworthy and what is not. That can be disputed any way you see it and I am all set to challenge this.] (]) 16:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Looking at your talk, this is getting way out of hand. Perhaps it might be best this went to ] for uninvolved admins to look at. ] (]) 16:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC) | ::::Looking at your talk, this is getting way out of hand. Perhaps it might be best this went to ] for uninvolved admins to look at. ] (]) 16:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Consensus seems firmly against you, Joe. I agree with Wingwraith, here; at best, it's of local interest. We already covered it on a different day, we don't need to cover every bit of minutia about an ultimately fairly unremarkable legal case in Britain with limited coverage by reliable sources. We might as well start covering low-profile murders in the United States, or poaching in Rwanda. ] (]) 17:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:43, 24 March 2018
House of Commons free speech news item
This edit of mine was reverted without a given reason. Please explain or I will restore this information. Wingwraith (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- You removed the content only citing that it was not newsworthy. You did not state any reason for that an that is why the content is reinstated.FreedomJoe (talk) 05:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- I have reinstated the post which was removed by an IP address. Seems there is dubious censorship happening right now.FreedomJoe (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- What does it matter it it was removed by an IP? It was also added by me on an an IP, here. It's clearly a matter of debate, I personally don't feel strongly enough to argue it either way, but please y'all try and civilly come to an agreement instead of edit warring. Please look at WP:3RR in particular. That goes for all the people in this whole mess, I'm sorry to say it seems I've created it by adding the item in the first place. I'm not going to WP:AN3 in the hope this will end now, but I can't guarantee nobody else will. 89.240.132.177 (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Civility went out of the tubes, when individuals started posting in my talk pages saying I am biased and accusing me of being a sockpuppet. Most of these individuals do not have a Wiki account. It would be clearly explained if we can look at their edit histories. For me there are many editors who are too set in their mind on what is newsworthy and what is not. That can be disputed any way you see it and I am all set to challenge this.FreedomJoe (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Looking at your talk, this is getting way out of hand. Perhaps it might be best this went to WP:ANI for uninvolved admins to look at. 89.240.132.177 (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Consensus seems firmly against you, Joe. I agree with Wingwraith, here; at best, it's of local interest. We already covered it on a different day, we don't need to cover every bit of minutia about an ultimately fairly unremarkable legal case in Britain with limited coverage by reliable sources. We might as well start covering low-profile murders in the United States, or poaching in Rwanda. Icarosaurvus (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Looking at your talk, this is getting way out of hand. Perhaps it might be best this went to WP:ANI for uninvolved admins to look at. 89.240.132.177 (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Civility went out of the tubes, when individuals started posting in my talk pages saying I am biased and accusing me of being a sockpuppet. Most of these individuals do not have a Wiki account. It would be clearly explained if we can look at their edit histories. For me there are many editors who are too set in their mind on what is newsworthy and what is not. That can be disputed any way you see it and I am all set to challenge this.FreedomJoe (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)