User talk:Edwardlucy

Chris Farnell

Hi User:Edwardlucy. I have reverted a recent change you made as the link you included appears to be broken. The URL also suggests it may be a press release - these are not reliable sources for Wikipedia (see WP:PRSOURCE for more background). I have reinstated content, based on a reliable BBC report, that you deleted. Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello again, User:Edwardlucy. You have now twice reverted changes to the Chris Farnell article without explanation, introducing details that are not supported by the BBC source, and removing details that are supported by the source. Please stick to information that is reflected in reliable sources - and explaining your edits might also be helpful. Paul W (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

HI Paul,

Hope that you are doing good. Will you pls guide me what wrong I am doing? Basically the text which I want to replace is well narrated about the situation oy my client. As the text which is there stated that "All were cleared of any wrongdoing" its means that my client had some legal issue but infect he was not the guilty and not the others.

As much as BBC link concerns it remain their I am not changing it. My concerns is just to replace the text which clear the reputation of my client Chirs Farnell.

Will you pls guide me how I can replace his personal life section with following text.

In September 2015, Chris Farnell was instructed by Gavin Mccan on his transfer to Bolton Wanderers, which resulted in a dispute with his former agent, who attempted to bring charges against Sammy Lee and Phil Gartside. No charges were brought against Farnell. Both Gartside and Lee were cleared of any wrongdoing.

Many thanks Edwardlucy (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Edwardlucy, thank you for replying. The key issue is that Wikipedia content needs to be verifiable. Please read WP:Verify, in particular the opening three paragraphs.

1. You have a clear conflict of interest (see WP:COI) which precludes you from editing the article about Chris Farnell - you identify him as your "client" (this is not the first time this article has faced a COI issue).
2. I have not been able to find your "well narrated" situation about Chris Farnell (if you can provide a link(s) to an alternative source(s), please do). The BBC reference therefore remains the most reliable source (WP:RS) about the McCann case.
3. Currently, the text you want to insert is not supported by an alternative reliable source. The BBC has a strong reputation for reliable reporting and it asserted that Chris Farnell "faced two counts of perjury". This directly contradicts your desired assertion that "No charges were brought against Farnell." In editing the article, however, I was careful to assert that Chris Farnell was, with others, cleared of charges (as the BBC reported).

Paul W (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Faced two counts of perjury

Is not the same as ‘charged’ with two counts of pergury

Facing a charge means that someone accused you with no evidence and nothing behind it

When there is evidence arrest you, police charge you with a crime

Your still not guilty

Then if your found guilty in court your ‘found guilty of...’

If Wikipedia is based on facts

It can only include this if he was found guilty of it, and at least if he was charged by police for it

But he was not

He was only ‘facing counts’

I can say that you robbed a bank

It will mean your facing counts of robbing a bank

But it doesn’t mean that your charged for that crime or that your found guilty

Mentioning this is needlessly harming his reputation unfairly Edwardlucy (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your argument (I am not a lawyer). However, you appear to contest how the facts were reported by the BBC. Based on a careful reading of the source, I have slightly expanded the wording to note that this was a private prosecution and that no evidence was offered. The article also clearly states that all parties were cleared of any wrongdoing, so I do not think this harms Mr Farnell's reputation. Paul W (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Please why are you updating things when you don’t understand them? Just to earn points for your account? Edwardlucy (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

1. Your argument was poorly written (please learn the difference between your and you're, and having some punctuation helps); that's why I couldn't understand it.
2. Nobody earns points on Wikipedia.

Paul W (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Faced two counts of perjury

Is not the same as ‘charged’ with two counts of pergury

Facing a charge means that someone accused you with no evidence and nothing behind it

When there is evidence arrest you, police charge you with a crime

You are still not guilty

Then if you found guilty in court ‘found guilty of...’

If Wikipedia is based on facts

It can only include this if he was found guilty of it, and at least if he was charged by police for it

But he was not

He was only ‘facing counts’

I can say that you robbed a bank

It will mean you are facing counts of robbing a bank

But it doesn’t mean that you are charged for that crime or that your found guilty.

Wikipedia is like an encyclopedia not a personal profile of a person with everything in it.

I am not saying the BBC isn’t accurate but you even says I doesn’t understand what a ‘count’ is.

Lastly I am very sorry on my statement which hurt you. Edwardlucy (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the current wording of the article in relation to the perjury case is a brief and fair reflection of the information given in the BBC sources. Paul W (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

But as per my understandings as I am a lawyer, the changes which I am doing covers all aspects of the case along with reputation of my client as well. Edwardlucy (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

IMHO, tThe narrative satisfactorily reflects available reliable sources, not any privileged insight you have through your client relationship (and a clear COI if you were to edit the article). Paul W (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)