User talk:Murray McDonald

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Elm Wood Primary School, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 92.11.168.231 (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions

Hello. Thank you for your User talkpage message about my edits to the "SpinWatch" and "Zac Goldsmith pages". Briefly, these were made under the policy on living persons to remove what appeared to be poorly sourced contentious material about living people.

In the article talkpage sections and edit summaries you characterised the changes as vandalism. I appreciate edit summaries, as relatively short comments, are often written in haste. While you've outlined your thought process on the talkpages nonetheless, it's always worth bearing in mind any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Naturally, I'm happy to clarify any edit I make. I'll reply to the article talkpage discussions with more information about the changes. Kind regards. -- 92.30.70.44 (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, including coatracking to violate neutral point of view policy, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --92.30.16.168 (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is plainly a bluff. Stop being such a big baby.

April 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on SpinWatch. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 19:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Murray McDonald. You have new messages at N5iln's talk page.
Message added 16:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Alan (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of SpinWatch

An article that you have been involved in editing, SpinWatch, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpinWatch. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jayron32 19:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:RSLIG-unity.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:RSLIG-unity.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spiked

It's been a long time since I've edited the Spiked page, and I don't intend to do so in the immediate future. However, my two cents are that, regardless of their factual accuracy, Monbiot's allegations are clearly WP:N and WP:V, and are referenced to an WP:RS, and thus clearly meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, which are oriented around verifiability, not truth. In essence, it doesn't actually matter whether Monbiot's claims are true or even plausable: the fact they were made in a third-party publication by a public figure is grounds for inclusion. Whilst reasonable, your criticisms of Monbiot's claims constitute WP:OR unless likewise referenced to WP:RS: even then, that would be grounds only for inclusion of the criticisms, not exclusion of Monbiot. I'll add the caveats that Monbiot's claims ought to be balanced by any rebuttals on Spiked's part, and that a separate section dealing with criticisms isn't ideal WP:NPOV-wise: criticisms should be included within the general narrative. Hope that helps.FrFintonStack (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Surely Monbiot's allegations are WP:CB FrFrinton? Murray McDonald (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) No, definitely not. Though I personally believe they overstate the case, in no respect could they be deemed to meet the criteria WP:CB outlines. 2)WP:CB is a WP:WES, and does not constitute Wikipedia policy, as a box at very beginning of WP:CB states explicitly. It cannot be used as a rationale for overruling WP:VNT.FrFintonStack (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]