User talk:Lutetia99

Hi, and welcome to wikipedia. I will cut straight to the chase: The material was removed from Catherine Meyer under the policy on biographies of living people, which exists to protect article subjects. No such policy exists with regards to organizations, so the fact that material was removed from Catherine Meyer is not relevant to Parents and Abducted Children Together. If you believe that the material should be removed for a different reason, please say so and I will direct you to the appropriate forum where we can request outside input on this dispute. Yoenit (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding unsourced material to the lead of Catherine Meyer. In your latest attempt, Meyer wasn't even listed in the source you provided. In addition, if you ever find a source for the assertion, it does not belong in the lead and should go in the body of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Are you connected at all to the subject on which you are writing here? --Epeefleche (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered my query, above. Epeefleche (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, here for instance you assert that allegations in the Daily Telegraph were untrue. What is the basis for that statement? Epeefleche (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect I have answered your question. I am planning to write a book on the role of Anglo-American cooperation in the development of child protection strategies. That is why I have taken an interest in PACT, as I have in NCMEC, ICMEC, Missing People and the British police agency, CEOP, which specializes in child protection.

On the the question of the Telegraph, it is, I am told, the normal practice of English newspapers to remove weblinks to stories they no longer believe to be credible. More important, it is bad practice in principle to cite dead or misleading links, which is why the reference to Missing Children's TV should also be removed. The service no longer exists and the link goes instead to a British press article.

There are two other cases in your version where the citation is not matched by the link, namely number 7 about Emcor's posters helping to find 4 missing children in 2009. When I clicked on the link it took me to Emcor's news in 2015; and number 13, linked to the PACT report "Taken", except that you refer in the footnote to another report, "Beyond Stranger Danger" - which you omit from the main text (see below).

There are other problems with your text. There are several places where a citation is needed. The text I posted has a citation with a live link for every statement. There are also errors of fact in your text: for example, in your second paragraph you assert that PACT helped produce the Missingkids website. This is untrue. NCMEC first produced the website. PACT campaigned successfully for its introduction into the UK where it is run by the police. Secondly, in the third paragraph, you refer to the British Child Abduction Hub. It should be called the UK Child Abduction Hub. The correct definition of the Hub is to be found in my version which is backed by the appropriate citation. Your assertion that the Hub spreads publicity about child abduction via a Child Rescue Alert is not correct. The Alert and the Hub are separate entities, the former being run by UK law enforcement and the latter by PACT, as should be clear from my citations.

You have also omitted two important initiatives in PACT's history: first, the 2014 report called "Beyond Stranger Danger" - which should be added to the others; second, the government's decision to include in passport leaflets information on child abduction prevention. Both of these omissions have citations in my version.

The important thing is to get this entry up to date and accurate. At the moment it's neither. But I agree that there is some stuff that can be omitted.

I am going to post a new version which I hope will meet both our concerns. Lutetia99 (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a business or financial interest, or personal relationship (including being the person in question), with any of the subjects of the articles that you are editing?

Including -- do you know any of the subjects of the articles that you are editing.

Or do your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers, have such relationships?

These are questions I'm trying to get you to answer, directly. Your answers have not been direct on these points.

If you are planning on writing a book -- I'm surprised that you would repeatedly add in material here that is non-factual, and that is clear, blatant, repeated puffery as to Meyer.

As to your removal of the RS Daily Telegraph -- I will ask you again ... on what basis did you remove it? The fact that a link is now a dead link is by no means reason to delete it. And are you editing this on the basis of personal knowledge?Epeefleche (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing falsehoods

This isn't the first time this has happened. You have here introduced a blatant falsehood -- introducing a ref, but with the ref not supporting the yet-again-added falsehood. That Meyer co-founded ICMEC. Why are you doing this? Please take this as a grave warning. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said on your talk page, I am baffled by your rejection of the text I posted. Every assertion is supported by a citation. The one mistake I made in relation to ICMEC was to write "co-found" instead of "launch", hardly an egregious error. I'd be very grateful if you would reconsider. By the way I am a veteran of child protection issues who follows closely the work of NCMEC, ICMEC, Missing People and PACT. Lutetia99 (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Hello, I'm Wikiisawesome. Your recent edit to the page Parents and Abducted Children Together appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. wia (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand. My latest edit has live citations for every assertion. I have explained in detail on my talk page what was wrong with the edit to which you have reverted. I do need to know point by point what's wrong with my edit. What information is incorrect? Lutetia99 (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lutetia -- I needed only to look at the first paragraph you edited here, to see that your assertion is untrue. Epeefleche (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered my question. What exactly is wrong with the first paragraph? It borrows heavily from your language. Why - precisely - is it inaccurate? Where is the supposed puffery of Meyer? Please explain. What on earth is an Ambox warning? Can you explain in plain language, please? Lutetia99 (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. As here. Epeefleche (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]