User talk:AlanDHarvey

Welcome!

Hello, AlanDHarvey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Requests for mediation/Swinton Circle, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ttonyb (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Requests for mediation/Swinton Circle

A tag has been placed on Requests for mediation/Swinton Circle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for mediation/Swinton Circle

I saw your request for mediation concerning the article Swinton Circle. Mediation is commonly used for:

a difference of positions between the respective parties;
a desire on the part of the parties to find a positive solution to the dispute and to accept a discussion about respective interests and objectives;
the intention of achieving a positive result through the help of an independent, neutral third-party not connected with any of the involved parties;
the intention of achieving a stable result, preferably a long-lasting agreement between the parties.

If there are inaccuracies in the article anyone can remove them and if they are reinstated those inaccuracies can be discussed in order to reach consensus. Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that uses verifiability and not truth as the basis for establishing notability and therefore, article inclusion. The removal of any comments from the article by someone related to the organization raises the concern of independence – as does the inclusion of material. Because Wikipedia is a community of editors and there are few limitations on the community, Wikipedia cannot insure the truthfulness of an article. Nor do I see a reason to remove the article. I have left you a Welcome message on this page that might help you navigate Wikipedia. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message here. ttonyb (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Requests for mediation/Swinton Circle

The article Requests for mediation/Swinton Circle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Attempt to communicate with Wikipedia admins. Chat like article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ttonyb (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for mediation/Swinton Circle is now Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-4/Swinton Circle

I've moved the page you created out of article space and into the mediation cabal's space. That's all I've done with it, there's no guarantee that they will act on your case. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation at Swinton Circle

Hello Alan, I've seen your request for mediation (which is now [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-4/Swinton Circle]|here]]) and would like to help you out. I just wanted to confirm that you would be available for a discussion. I'd like to conduct the discussion at the talk page of the article, and I will let you know when it is ready. I'm also going to try to get participation from other people who regularly edit the article. If you are available, please let me know, you can do so on this talk page, or my talk page, or the article's talk page. Thank you. -- Atama頭 16:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Swinton Circle

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Johnson,

The following is a message of complaint which I've recently sent to the Wikipedia administrators. I hope that you will be able to help resolve this most distressing problem for me :-

Dear Sirs,

I have had reason to contact you about the Wikipedia article regarding the Swinton Circle, of which I am currently Chairman, several times in the past, the address for this article being :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swinton_Circle

Several false and misleading claims have been made in this article in the past, and no matter how many times I have attempted to rectify them my corrections have constantly been vandalised. One of your officials advised me a short time ago to post complete details about the false assertions which keep on re-appearing on the relevant Discussion Page, and this I did on 30th October 2011- but alas the article itself was almost immeiately vandalised again.

Even more worrying, however, has been a recent development whereby a most defamatory, damaging and I believe libellous allegation has been made against me by someone editing under the pseudonym of "Captain Trifle" The original smears made against me which were repeated therein can be easily refuted, and indeed the matter is now in the hands of the Police. May I request therefore that these vile and offensive lies are never repeated on Wikipedia, otherwise I will be forced to take legal action against you.

More fundamentally however, although we would ideally like a fair and objective article about the Swinton Circle to appear on Wikipedia, it would probably be the lesser of two evils if the entire article which has been subjected to so many vandalism attacks could be removed in its entitety.

Yours sincerely,

Alan Harvey - Chairman, the Swinton Circle.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Swinton Circle. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Dear Mr Harvey,

You have a conflict of interest with this article. Edits which simply reflect your own POV can be interpreted as vandalism. I refer you to the WP:NPOV guidance.

The edits attributed to me were clearly referenced, and I even added in support references to your own “Springbok Cyber Newsletter”. I am aware you have made certain claims regarding the photographs. Do you accept that whilst a line could be added stating that you have denied their authenticity for whatever reason equally the original recipient, who presumably was sent the photos in good faith, could then equally dispute that?

I cannot see how your being linked with the British People's League is “defamatory” or “libellous”, indeed I notice you are happy to retain the statement on the page but - revealing - minus the internal link to John Beattie. Rather than just making wild denunciations of defamation and libel perhaps you could clearly state where you actually perceive there to be defamation and libel otherwise it looks like it is you who is smearing others. Where material has clearly been proven to be defamatory or libellous then it will be removed.

--Captain Trifle (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The libellous sections on this highly contentious Wikipedia entry relate to the evil and totally unfounded allegation that I have ever sent pornographic photographs of myself to a multi-racial dating site - or anywhere else for that matter. There is not a scintilla of truth in this evil, deranged and depraved allegation. I am currently in the process of tracing who is behind the lies which appear on the "Searchlight Exposed" web-site and will be talking legal action against them for libel. I advise all those involved with Wikipedia therefore to ensure that this libel is not repeated on their pages.

I have had a look at the Wikipedia entry for Mr. John Beattie and will be contacting him in this regard shortly. No doubt he will also have something to say about the content of this site.

The more general edits which I have made to the Wikipedia entry regarding the Swinton Circle are NOT simply my own points of view. They reflect the truth. It is those who constantly alter the facts in support of the expelled ex-Swinton Circle members Robertson and Wilkinson who are the vandals. As I have observed and requested several times in the past, if Wikipedia is not prepared to prevent such vandalism of this entry taking place then it would be best if the entire entry was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.230.169 (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have mentioned in my previous posting that the matter of the libellous web-site "Searchlight Exposed" is now in the hands of the Police.

Alan Harvey - Chairman, the Swinton Circle - 28th November 2011

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

--Orange Mike | Talk 23:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]