Talk:Colin Lamont: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:29, 7 September 2013

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Untitled

This article has been 'vandalized' by an administrator 'The JPS' who would appear to have a not inconsiderable and often unhealthy interest in thi particular subject and in the one it is linked to. References to the subjects formal education properly referenced in Debretts have been removed and the article 'protected' so that it cannot be legitimately edited. This sort of behaviour would appear to be the trademark of this particular editor/administrator and is a blatant abuse of editorial & administratrative power all other editors & administrators take note and be vigilant at all times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.218.214 (talk • contribs)

Why does none of this surprise me? I have encountered gruelling opposition by this user in my legitimate attempts to make the articles more accurate. The JPS has been told and also had it pointed out several times that 'COLIN LAMONT' does NOT broadcast for The Commonwealth Broadcasting Association but 'SCOTTIE McCLUE' does which is the whole point in splitting the articles in the first place but he does not appear to be able to take this on board. Consequently he would be better not touching the articles as he does not have enough knowledge of the subject although he does appear to have a vested interest in it. as well as the articles on John Myers, John Simons Smooth Radio and other radio industry giants. Also I see The JPS has again been disruptive and removed the educational references which YES quite correct are in Debretts for no reason which is a clear abuse of admin powers as you have so rightly said above. --Havengore (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listen dude, friendly warning here - you need to stop making this personal and accusing other editors of vandalism when what is actually happening is a content dispute. I see you have just come back from a block, and I'd hate to see you blocked again. So I suggest you try to relax a bit, and try to discuss this in a less confrontational and personal way. And I would suggest you give serious consideration to the mentorship idea, as your current approach is, sadly, probably not likely to be tolerated for too long -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The JPS does have a vested interest in the John Simons article as he started the page in the first place. and he is a heavy editor of the one on John Myers but exactly what his connection is with all these senior radio people remains to be seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.218.214 (talk) 09:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude I see where your coming from with your 'friendly warning' to user--Havengore (talk) but you may have stumbled accross something that would benefit from further investigation with your eagle eye. havengore is appealing to people like you to sit up and take notice happy days love to Liverpool. A well wisher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.218.214 (talk • contribs)

Hi. My comment was advice regarding Havengore's style of discussion, which I think has been unproductive - this is an article Talk page and it is for discussing the article itself, not for interpersonal warring. If anyone thinks some part of the article needs to be changed, then they should make their proposals here in a calm, civil and collegial manner, and with documentation to support any additional material they wish to introduce. Other editors will then examine their suggestions and a consensus will arise. That's the way to do it, not by edit-warring and slinging mud at people. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Havengore would benefit from a far less heavy handed and confrontational attitude and far more understanding from those who purport to know better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.218.214 (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, this page is for talking about *this article*, not about other editors - so please, can we drop the argument and concentrate on the article now? If anyone proposes any changes, I'll be happy to add my opinions on them -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Please remember to add "~~~~" to the end of your comments, which will be replaced by your signature, so we can tell who's talking -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, thanks Boing said Zebedee. After much lobbying this article was split into two last week Scottie McClue and Colin Lamont When it was just the The Scottie McClue one it had a mention that Scottie broadcasts around the world for the CBA when it split it was put in the Colin Lamont one in error as Colin Lamont has never broadcast for them Scottie has but the editor in question keeps reverting this and refuses to put it in the Scottie McClue page where it belongs and no one else can as he has protected it. Also some of Colin Lamont's educational details had been added from Debretts and were removed by this same person. We just need others to get access to update the articles which should have more than one admin looking after them. You will see the history at all the talk pages including mine. All I've tried to do is gain access and right a few wrongs but got 'set upon' and 'bitten' from the start.--Havengore (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

eg. this piece;

Lamont has also broadcast internationally on behalf of the London-based Commonwealth Broadcasting Association.^[1]

Should be removed from the Colin Lamont page and should go in the Scottie McClue page as

More recently Scottie McClue has broadcast internationally on behalf of the London-based Commonwealth Broadcasting Association.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havengore (talk • contribs) 12:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this sentence entirely as a Google search reveals no evidence that either McClue or Lamont have engaged in any such broadcasts. The Commonwealth Broadcasting Assocation's own web page indicates that they are an assocation which broadcasters can join, not broadcasters in their own right. Therefore any claims to have broadcast "on behalf of" such an assocation need a far better reference to be made in EITHER article. Incidentally, can we drop the fiction that "no-one" can edit these articles? They are freely editable by anyone who does not hide behind the cloak of anonymity, and has an account in good standing. Meanwhile, I'll look at the point you made re education. Bonusballs (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right - as far as I can see, the "Educated at The University of Glasgow where he obtained a Degree of Bachelor of Arts" text was added by an anonymous IP address registered to BT Broadband. It was added to the 'Career' section, where it would have been out of place. That doesn't disqualify it from being included in the article (perhaps in an 'Education' section) but this information is NOT mentioned in the Debrett's reference, and that pretty much rules it out from being included. A Google search reveals no other mentions of Colin Lamont and the University of Glasgow together, apart from some print sources published in 1780 - which I think we can confidently assume is not the same individual. Since Colin Lamont is a living person he is entitled to the full protection of Wikipedia's Biography Of Living Persons Policy which states that unreferenced, poorly sourced or contentious content added to the article of a living person MUST be removed. Again, TheJPS would appear to have taken exactly the correct action here, in response to anonyous editing of an article relating to a living person. Bonusballs (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just get one thing clear - are Colin Lamont and Scottie McClue not actually the same person, with "Scottie McClue" being Colin Lamont's radio persona? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Arguably they should have the same article but the separation was more of a pragmatic attempt to end a sustained and long-running campaign of anonyous deletions of Lamont references from the Scottie article, which has been occuring on a constant basis since as far back as 2007. Bonusballs (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it's not possible for Scottie McClue to do something without Colin Lamont doing it, because Colin Lamont *is* Scottie McClue - but it is possible for Lamont to do something without McClue doing it, as he might not be in character. Does that seem reasonable? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, seems logical. Bonusballs (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Re: "All I've tried to do is gain access and right a few wrongs but got 'set upon' and 'bitten' from the start" - Can we please just *drop* all that now and stick to the article? Please let's not rehash what others have done and what you have done - just tell us what you want to see done *now*, and provide some links to support it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CBA stuff available here it's referenced in Debretts and I'm sure the CBA would confirm as would the stations. http://www.scottie-mcclue.com/sounds/falklands.mp3

http://www.scottie-mcclue.com/sounds/falklands.mp3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.218.214 (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The mp3 is not usable as a reference, as there's nothing in it that says who is broadcasting it or on behalf of whom.
"I'm sure the CBA would confirm as would the stations" cannot be used as a reference - we need an actual published source.
If it's in Debrett's, can you please provide us with the full reference?

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One article/two articles

I don't see why there are two articles at all. As someone pointed out last week Cliff Richard & Harry Webb ar not separate. I feel there is only a need for one Scottie McClue article only referring to Scottie McClue and going from from 1992 covering Scottie's exploits for the last 19 years. That is the article and there is absolutely no need for any reference to Colin Lamont. Which is a red herring causing unecessary confusion which means nothing to anyone searching for or interested in Scottie McClue.--109.154.218.214 (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two articles now precisely because 'someone' spent many years trying to erase all mention of Colin Lamont from the Scottie McClue article and this seemed to be a possible way to prevent the ongoing abuse of the article. Unfortunately it seems the goalposts have now changed from "no need for mention of Colin Lamont in the Scottie McClue article" to "no need to mention Colin Lamont on Wikipedia at all". Unfortunately Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not someone's personal website - nobody gets to decide to wipe someone's history off the face of the earth, whatever reasons they may have for wanting to. Bonusballs (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we only really needed one article. But of course it should cover Colin Lamont, as he is the real person behind the radio persona. And there's absolutely nothing "confusing" at all by saying so -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think ONE article about Scottie McClue with a reference to Colin Lamont well into the article rather than Scottie McClue being known only as 'the pseudonym for Colin Lamont' which will mean zero to serious students of Wikipedia looking for Scottie McClue. I also think we need to drop the attitudes and egos of individual editors in favour of the article being of sufficient quality to reflect its important subject.

This article has attracted such controversy from so many people that I actually went on record last week as having emailed Scottie McClue at scottie@scottie-mcclue.com through http://www.scottie-mcclue.com urging him to ask for deletion of all references to him on this website as I felt that the infighting and vandalism were not worthy of or in keeping with all other reference works on him on the internet and beyond.--Havengore (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re "drop the attitudes and egos of individual editors" - again, STOP the personal attacks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An example of how misleading this is and can be is this direct quote;

Scottie McClue Main article: Scottie McClue In 1992 Colin Lamont moved to Red Rose Gold in Preston,[6] to become a senior producer and presenter for the station. While at the station he created the on-air pseudonym Scottie McClue who became a controversial figure, subsequently presenting on a variety of stations across Scotland and the North East of England, and in syndication.

From day one Scottie McClue was the producer and presenter of the phone-in programme and no reference to Colin Lamont would ever be made during broadcasts so Scottie would have arrived at Red Rose Radio as Scottie McClue and would have left two or three years later as Scottie McClue and that will always have been the pattern over the last twenty years so the public will have no knowledge of any Colin Lamont so how are they being served by this kind of writing in a supposedly important and definitive work of reference.--Havengore (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Scottie McClue is, in effect, a 'stage name', that would only apply to on-air activity. Senior producer is a role which must, obviously, be assigned to a "real" person and that person in that sense would be Lamont, which is why he is mentioned - once - in that paragraph. It's necessary to give at least one mention of how the McClue character came to be. You seem to want the article to start from his first moment on the air, and not to mention anything before that, or any detail of who or where this person came from. I'm not sure there is any precendent for someone to demand NOT to be mentioned on Wikipedia. It is arguably no business of Scottie's anyway, unless the information is factually inaccurate (to a degree which is libellous or otherwise actionable). You yourself have already said (remember?) that you were quite sure that Colin Lamont and Scottie McClue were such broadcasting powerhouses that they would be entirely uninterested in the insignificant doings of Wikipedia. If they did wish to take an interest - and to not fall foul of Wikipedia's Conflict Of Interest policies, then they would certainly be welcome to register their own accounts and perhaps discuss their suggested edits on the talk pages of the articles in question. But fundamentally, people do not get to edit their own biography, and if other editors do not agree with the edits being suggested, and if no concensus can be reached after discussion, then no changes would be made. Even if Scottie McClue were to come on Wikipedia in person, using his own name, and demand all references to Lamont be expunged from his article, he'd be refused too. Discussion and concensus are the only means by which such controversial edits can be made. Bonusballs (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it were libellous then Scottie would be within his rights to ask for removal or action to be taken. This article over the last ten years or however long has become almost unrecognisable has had at times no bearing on the truth and has at times been unrecognisable to those of us who are fans and followers of Scottie McClue. Rest assured if Scottie wanted it removed the site owners would have to take cognisensce of that, so let's not get too carried away with our own importance. As recently as a fortnight ago this article reflected its subject well and then the vandals struck again. Perhaps if we all did three reverts each until we were back there, peace would reign again for a while and the article would sport a degree of accuracy to its subject and title of Scottie McClue. --109.154.218.214 (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're going around in circles here. If any aspect of either article is wrong, say EXACTLY what it is, and say what it should be replaced with, citing appropriate references. By the way you seem to have the same problem as Havengore of forgetting to sign your edits - if you type ~~~~ at the end of a message it'll be signed for you automatically. Bonusballs (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK quite right, Right, mentioning Colin Lamont at the start of an article on Scottie McClue is wrong and of little value to the public in their search. Scottie McClue is Scottie McClue end of. Using it as a football to say personally "I know another name for Scottie McClue" as if you knew him better than the rest of us as a sort of claim to fame doesn't impress. Sorry if I forgot to sign the last time. I can't be held responsible for omissions of others.--109.154.218.214 (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In short we jettison the Colin Lamont article and remove virtually all career references to Lamont from the Scottie McClue article and we are then true to Wikipedia as a work of reference.--109.154.218.214 (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not a chance - removing factual and relevant material would be stupid. The point of a work of reference is that it should be of use to people looking for information that don't already know - having a reference work that only contains what is already common knowledge would be of little value -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK what would you suggest?--109.154.218.214 (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The default position for an article is to contain as much detail about the subject as is relevant, and referenced. You yourself made the point, both here and on Talk:Scottie McClue that the Cliff Richard article mentions Webb. The point of splitting the McClue/Lamont articles was an exceptional attempt to quell the non-stop anonymous removal edits that had been plaguing the McClue article since 2007. But as was said on Talk:Scottie McClue even an article split would never expunge all mention of Lamont from the McClue article, it would be impossible not to acknowledge the dual identity. Bonusballs (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What would I suggest? All I'm doing is helping to review the suggested changes - I have no agenda myself and there are no changes that I want. I probably wouldn't propose merging back to one article for now - but whether it stays as two or goes back to one eventually, I would strongly oppose the excision of Lamont from it - there hasn't been anything close to a credible reason given by anyone for it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zeb are you editing and removing my responses?--109.154.218.214 (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowingly - hang on and I'll check back over my changes and see if I've accidentally screwed anything up -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, there are my last few edits and I can't see anything gone wrong in them - [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudonym

The on air pseudonym it's not it's the on air name of the presenter.--109.154.218.214 (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, name/pseudonym - tricky. I think it comes down to what name he currently goes under in real life. Is he still, in real life, known as Colin Lamont? If so, I'd say "pseudonym" is the better description of the name "Scottie McClue". But if he actually goes through life as "Scottie McClue", maybe "name" would be more accurate -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about a compromise, something like... "While at the station he created the on-air persona Scottie McClue" ? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I've added a new heading to help make editing easier - hope that's OK -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Excellent thank you Boing! said Zebedee. We have all benefitted from your wise counsel today thank you. People like you would make it worth staying on.--Havengore (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree - the term "persona" is used several times elsewhere in the article, so "pseudonym" in the McClue paragraph was perhaps an unnecesary attempt to avoid repetition. Have changed this. Bonusballs (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference Debretts was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Debretts-1] Cite error: The named reference Debretts was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

@@ Line 115: / Line 115: @@
 :: Quite agree - the term "persona" is used several times elsewhere in the article, so "pseudonym" in the McClue paragraph was perhaps an unnecesary attempt to avoid repetition. Have changed this. [[User:Bonusballs|Bonusballs]] ([[User talk:Bonusballs|talk]]) 16:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
-== September 2013 [[WP:PEACOCK]] edits ==
-I have undone 'vandalism' by Editor 'bonusballs' who has a clear history of vandalism against this particular subject even when asked to STOP & 'drop the stick' by other editors. Bonusballs appears to have a personal grudge here and displays an attitude of low esteem by seeing anything positive in the subject as 'peacocking' this behaviour must STOP and all Editors should see this otherwise 'bonusballs' should be BLOCKED on the THREE revert rule.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.151.72.33|86.151.72.33]] ([[User talk:86.151.72.33|talk]]) 05:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-:: Can we not go through all this again, please? I will refer interested editors to your (near-identical) claims at the top of this talk page, showing that for years you have claimed 'Editor x has a history of vandalism and has a personal grudge' on each and every occasion that your wildly [[WP:NPOV]] edits to this article are reverted. I would also point out that your sock puppet account names (e.g. Loganswell, Havengore, etc) have previously been blocked for this activity focused on both this and the main [[Scottie McClue]] article. This nonsense has been going on for years and the history is there for everyone to see.
-:: You may think that you are an 'outstanding communicator'. However, your peerless communications skills seem to be lacking in this particular regard. Such [[WP:PEACOCK]] terms are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia unless supported by a reliable third-party source. Show me a respectable publication (not scottiemcclue.com) that describes you as an 'outstanding communicator' and the term can be used in the article. Until then, wishing won't make it so. Since it is you who are so clearly in breach of the wiki rules I would urge you not to adopt a position of dictating to other editors what to do. I'm being kind in describing these edits as peacockery - since you are quite clearly and undeniably the subject of this article, in truth your attempted editing is actually [[WP:COI]], and has consistently been so. [[User:Bonusballs|Bonusballs]] ([[User talk:Bonusballs|talk]]) 07:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
-As usual you vindictiveness shines through Mr Lamont is clearly an 'outstanding communicator' the facts speak for themselves and are backed up at every turn, if you do not 'drop the stick' and desist from vandalising the subject then you should be banned from editing for life as you are operating outwith the spirit of Wikipedia as you have done so many times in the past which any editor worth his salt can see. Peacockery is nothing to do with your personal jealousies, prejudices and grudges against an outstanding subject.
-:: If you see vandalism on wikipedia you are encouraged to report it via the correct channels. I stand by my actions and am not in the slightest concerned by your repeated false allegations. However I fear that you are not really one to adjudicate on who should be 'banned from editing for life' since your [[User:Havengore|Havengore]] account was, and still is, indefinitely banned from Wikipedia due to exactly the kind of vexatious and tendentious behaviour which you are displaying once again. Your [[WP:NPOV]] edits against [[Colin Lamont]] and [[Scottie McClue]] have been ongoing since 2007 - each and every one is on record and visible for others to see and consider. Don't forget that Wikipedia is [[WP:REAL]] after all. Everything you say and do goes into an indefinite public record. Is this really the legacy you wish to leave? [[User:Bonusballs|Bonusballs]] ([[User talk:Bonusballs|talk]]) 10:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
-All protection needs to be lifted from the Colin Lamont article as it is an abuse of your editing due to your clear personal prejudice and grudge against the subject going back many years in collusion with another Editor with whom you are in constant contact. You require to be banned for constant and consistent disruptive editing and vandalism against this particular subject which weakens Wikipedia considerably as all edits were made in good faith. You are constantly attempting to out other editors which is against the pillars of Wikipedia. Your petty performance is very poor and shabby and you need to give up Editing and 'PEACOCKING' as you said you were going to so that standards may again rise again. You need to STOP OWN UP & 'DROP THE STICK' or give up editing with immediate effect.
-:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.169.26.165|86.169.26.165]] ([[User talk:86.169.26.165|talk]]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-:: Havengore, your claims are without foundation. Again, all you are doing is repeatedly and vexatiously parroting various phrases you've heard other people use (e.g. 'drop the stick'.) This article would not have even needed protection had it not been for your abusive actions towards it, over a sustained period of time. There is no prejudice, no collusion, the article was protected entirely independently of me and without my knowledge. The facts speak for themselves, as does your behaviour.
-:: Let's be clear here. You started this with your edits which were in breach of wiki policy, your personal attacks, which are also in breach of wiki policy, and your decision to return to your behaviour of making outrageously one-sided edits to [[Colin Lamont]] and [[Scottie McClue]], behaviour which has been continuing from your various usernames and IP addresses since at least 2007. You were indefinitely banned from Wikipedia in 2011, but came back and attempted to edit regardless, and today your article has been locked as a result of your continuing abuse. You have been well and truly found out. And now it's over. No more to say. The article remains editable by genuine editors who have the motivation and ability to contribute and improve it. The protection shields the article from abuse by vandals and trolls. Your own actions were what made that necessary - nobody else's. [[User:Bonusballs|Bonusballs]] ([[User talk:Bonusballs|talk]]) 12:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
-::: What utter nonsense Bonusballs it is you who has been 'found out' you are in breach of almost every Wiki rule going and you know fine well that you and James have colluded in the past on this article since 2007. I have been a Wiki Editor for many years and have never encountered anything like it you have much to be ashamed of. All my edits are in good faith and within the rules and guidelines it is you who has made trouble from the start this article should never need protecting the evidence for my post is ipso facto from the correct sources everything has been done properly you have acted and colluded as a petty vandal for no reason other than a tiny mind you do really need to consider your position as you are very bad for a site like this in your suppression of fact and your clear attempts at distortion of the truth. Now STOP & 'DROP THE STICK' Now for the sake of all of us Bona Fide editors who like factual articles and have no axe to grind surely there must be other subjects you would rather vandalise and leave the goodies to their tasks. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.169.26.165|86.169.26.165]] ([[User talk:86.169.26.165|talk]]) </span>
-:::: Every single thing you say there is untrue and easy for anyone to check. All noise, no content, as usual. No more to say. [[User:Bonusballs|Bonusballs]] ([[User talk:Bonusballs|talk]]) 13:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
-Everything I say is 100% verifiable and clearly on record as complete fact. Of course you have nothing more to say there is nothing more you can say you have been caught playing a game and found out now your little games are up and your micro-minded agenda exposed for all to see your one saving grace would be to admit your shame and give up editing on Wiki.
-NB. I still maintain that the article should acknowledge that Mr Lamont is 'an outstanding communicator' after all the rest of the World is aware of the facts and nothing can change that.
-[[File:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=Warning icon]] Editor Bonusballs Please stop your [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive editing]]. If you continue to block editing of the subject [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable|delete or edit]] legitimate talk page comments, as you did at [[:Talk:Colin Lamont]], you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing permanently this is your last warning]]. <!-- Template:uw-tpv3 --> <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.169.26.165|86.169.26.165]] ([[User talk:86.169.26.165|talk]]) </span>