User talk:NotQualified/Archive 1

Archive 1

Elon Musk

Hi @NotQualified thank you for your recent edits on Elon Musk, however I do not believe it would be beneficial to include a link to Oldham_Council#Child sexual exploitation, as musk's comments referred to "grooming gangs" more broadly in the United Kingdom including incidents in Rochdale and Rotherham. Knowledgework69 (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

That's the thing I'm not sure about but I get what you mean. It was specifically Jess Philips' handling of Oldham that got Musk so angry at her, I think it could be re-written to include that NotQualified (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

About your Oldham edit, the Conservative Cllr.'s comment was sourced, why was it removed? NotQualified (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

So was Labour blocking, all sources were linked under the Failsworth Independent remark. In fairness, I should've pasted the source closer to the remark. NotQualified (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@NotQualified Hi if you check oldham council talk page I have done a brief explanation, I agree it is a very important topic but it needs to be rewritten in parts Knowledgework69 (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah I didn't see that my apologies, the sources where 2 paragraphs removed from the quote, in future I would put them closer to your quote it also may be beneficial for you to source on visual edit by using " <ref " it should open a reference inserter which will allow you to generate an automatic title and date for your quote so it is not just a bare link. [[User:Knowledgework69|Knowledgework69]] ([[User talk:Knowledgework69|talk]]) 16:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC) == January 2025 == [[File:Information orange.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Please do not [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|attack]] other editors, as you did at [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring'#User:Hemiauchenia by User:NotQualified (Result: No violation)]]. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please [[Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot|stay cool]] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-npa2 --> [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller]] talk 09:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Doug, I have written very extensively (but not even exhaustively which I will detail to you step by step if needs be) on how they've operated in bad faith. I know we are supposed to assume good faith, I did. This user is acting poorly and has repeatedly been complained about by other users for their repeated bad faith edits on child sexual abuse in the UK. Looking at their logs, they report mainly on right wing authors who have discussed at length child sex abuse (e.g. Douglas Murray), child sex abuse it self, or the peripharies of Islam. I am operating on the grounds this user is definitely not a good faith actor (not because of their topics of discussion but because of their actions, I'm just adding context of what this person posts on)

Just to be clear, I know you want me to "comment on content", the problem is that this users obstructs content to begin with or refuses to engage with it through instant reverts and nonsensical revert logs. I'll give you an example, they said they had consensus that "moral panic" and such was agreed upon when discussing child rape by muslims in the UK in response to me adding the non-balance and weasel word tags (this response has literally no relation to weasel words which they also reverted just citing in verbatim "No." but I digress) so I read the very long discussion they tag and it is just a merge request with most people disagreeing with the content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1268289467

Here is them explicitly saying this.

That's one example of many I have, I can spend the next three hours with you discussing bad faith by this user if you want. I find it deeply disturbing they have such a log count on the above topics given their behaviour.

I literally went line by line with in line template tags because the article was that badly written just to explain to them my problems and instead of engage with that they revert again and cite my "right wing bias". Do you understand how frustrating this is, this is beyond accidental.

I understand you want me to be cool and I'm sorry but this is not a discussion on apples or houses, this is about mass child rape. I cant comment on content when thats something they refuse to engage with or provide. I met this user yesterday and I have already so much to say. NotQualified (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify, it was PRIMARILY a merge request. There was some discussion on moral panic, none on weasel words. NotQualified (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify that in fairness to them the merge does specifically make light of the term "moral panic" but not weasel words, and furthermore I believe the section has a bias and I went in-line line by line to show that, it's not just "moral panic". NotQualified (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

January 2025

Your edit to James McMurdock has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Diannaa (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

? NotQualified (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I am deeply confused here. What did I write that was copy and pasted? I think I'm being flagged for copying quotes, which in case, Sky News does not own other people's words. Quotes are not something a newspaper gets to say is theirs. NotQualified (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

There were some quotes, but I didn't remove any quotes. I removed "Labour pushed to make mandatory Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for any prospective parliamentary candidates in the future. McMurdock said he would "support that motion", though no Reform MP voted for it in an early day motion when it was laid in parliament." Diannaa (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

ah, i thought as i cited sky news in text directly people would understand this was a sky quote but in retrospect that wouldve been silly. thanks for this. i tried to change up some of the language but looking at what was written vs whats in the article it's pretty close. cut too close to the bone as they say. it wasnt intentional, thanks! NotQualified (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Jan 25

You might need to read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

thanks for this. i do comment a lot but i thought it was just me being thorough. i didnt intend for this so i apologise. NotQualified (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Tacklebox (July 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Theroadislong were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Tacklebox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, NotQualified! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

And some friendly advice: you are unlikely to find it helpful to your cause to attempt to continue the debate regarding GBNews as a source at WP:ANI. Content decisions are not resolved there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Link to ANI thread. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)