Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Kim Darroch, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A " bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 16:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Kim Darroch. You're going to have to take your edits to the article Talk page per WP:BRD and WP:BLP. Bbb23 ( talk) 16:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

My sources are leading British and American newspapers. I could even add more sources. Why are you removing sourced material. CSPNPC ( talk) 16:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I referenced a variety of newspaper sources. They all say the same thing? Why are you removing well sourced material? Which newspaper referenced do you not like. This matter is the subject of a public court case. CSPNPC ( talk) 16:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Please tell me which of the newspapers referenced you do not like? CSPNPC ( talk) 16:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Bbb23, Please tell me which of the 8 newspaper articles referenced for that one paragraph you do not like. CSPNPC ( talk) 16:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Every source is terrible except for the Telegraph. Please review WP:RSP. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 18:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I will keep the Telegraph as you suggest. I will remove the The Express newspaper and Sun newspaper sources. The Washington Examiner is NOT terrible. It is a reliable Washington newspaper read by public policy writers and the well respected journalist who wrote the article hosts the McLaughlin Group. I will also add The Guardian and The Times who have reported the same. CSPNPC ( talk) 18:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The original publisher, The Sun, a completely inappropriate source, even said the allegations were cleared [1] and then later had to remove the story. [2] This is all WP:BLPGOSSIP at this point. You should not reinstate any of this for now and let others review this material and discuss whether it is appropriate. [3] Morbidthoughts ( talk) 18:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

They had to remove the story because they did not serve the CNN journalist a right to reply letter. I have removed the Sun Article. CSPNPC ( talk) 18:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The Spectator is a weekly journal and one of the oldest in the UK. It is NOT terrible. I am really surprised you would say that. CSPNPC ( talk) 18:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history at Kim Darroch shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 18:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Do you approve of the these sources?

^[1]

^[2]

^[3]

^[4]

^[5] CSPNPC ( talk) 18:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Please discuss at this link [4] Morbidthoughts ( talk) 18:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you CSPNPC ( talk) 18:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.

Schazjmd  (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you CSPNPC ( talk) 20:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

You have now posted your desired text and sources on WP:BLPN three times; that's two times more than necessary. Please stop pasting the same text over and over. Schazjmd  (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Schazjmd,

If you compare the three posted text and compare them, you will read that they have been amended and are different. The last text referenced the Claimant and the High Court claim, but that was not in the previous text. CSPNPC ( talk) 20:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Your posts have become merely walls of text. It's unreasonable to expect other editors to carefully compare your various blocks of text for wording differences. Use insert and delete so everyone can see what you've changed. Don't keep pasting a long list of sources that haven't changed. Schazjmd  (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the advice on insert and delete. Having said that, my text have changed. It is not true to say that have not. CSPNPC ( talk) 20:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I said sources that haven't changed. Schazjmd  (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply