Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lincolnshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lincolnshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LincolnshireWikipedia:WikiProject LincolnshireTemplate:WikiProject LincolnshireLincolnshire
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Speedything, you said that it had already been discussed that her husband being the CEO of a cannabis-growing firm fitted better into a controversies section than into the personal life section. Where was this discussed? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
The reason the user keeps removing the content you are adding is not because it is poorly source, they are removing it because it does not belong in Personal Life, therefore stop attempting to place it in personal life. Further violation of the revert rule and disruptive editing may result in a block. Please try to solve conflicts peacefully.Chieftain Tartarus11:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
It wasn't really a discussion, it was more an advisory based on how other articles are laid out. That being said, I am 100% behind Speedything in the relevance of this information to the article. The discussion should never have been whether the information was relevant, it should have been where to correctly place the information in the article. Users should not feel 'restrained' when it comes to adding new sections to articles if they are confident that the information is relevant to the subject. Based on the recent edit history of the article, I believe this compromise has resolved the dispute and it appears the other warring party, User:Heliotom, is satisfied; therefore I don't see any need for further discussion, with the exception of course being if new information comes to light about the subject. Chieftain Tartarus(talk)14:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
