User talk:John Jones

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom, you may be blocked from editing. Please keep it neutral and balanced. There was no evidence of anyone prioritising anyone for PPE, only unfounded claims, therefore your language and phrasing of the incident was entirely inappropriate, and to play turn back on yourself dangerous. Please be more constructive in the future. Games of the world (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That is quite an accusation! No warning, just whack! You didn't provide a heading for your warning or a link to which of my contributions you refer to (only a link to the article), which I find odd. I think, maybe, you're referring to this one? If so, then my edit contained the following information:

On 10 April the UK Government sent out a document to PPE suppliers informing them not to sell medical equipment, including masks, to Public Health Wales, NHS Wales, Public Health Scotland, NHS Scotland or care homes in Wales and Scotland.[1] The suppliers were told to sell only to Care Quality Commission, which regulates all health and social care services in England only. No services in Wales or Scotland are registered with them. Many companies told care providers in Scotland and Wales that they could not supply them with PPE. Gompels' website, for example, mentioned that These restrictions are not something we have decided, they are a criteria given to us by Public Health England.[2]

So let's take a closer look at this.

• Sentence 1:

Are you questioning here whether the document sent out? I'm not saying that it was, but both my references do. As all the largest PPE suppliers stopped selling to Scotland and Wales, then yes a directive would have been sent out to them by the UK Government and this is confirmed by the suppliers themselves! This is referenced (BBC) and also in others, such as this one which states One of the companies, Gompels Health Care, told her: "We notice that your order includes products which we are selling on behalf of Public Health England, and we can only deliver these products for people who operate in England. Different schemes exist for Scotland and Wales." The reference I gave (BBC) also quotes Ceri Roberts who runs two care homes: She told BBC Wales two suppliers had declined to sell to her when she tried to buy aprons and gloves for her staff. If you don't think these companies were told not to sell to S and W, then please let me know as they confirmed that this was so, and I could provide further links. I reference the Guardian, which mentions, Donald Macaskill, chief executive of Scottish Care, the sector’s umbrella body, claimed that the UK’s four largest PPE suppliers said they were not distributing to Scotland because their priority was going to be “England, the English NHS and then English social care providers”.

So if you want further references on sentence 1 do let me know.

• Sentence 2:

The suppliers were told to sell only to Care Quality Commission - this is said in the BBC ref: One supplier told her it was selling stock "on behalf of Public Health England". It also includes this quote from one of the companies:

One of the companies, Gompels Health Care, told her: "We notice that your order includes products which we are selling on behalf of Public Health England, and we can only deliver these products for people who operate in England. Different schemes exist for Scotland and Wales."

The Guardian report also quotes Vaughan Gething , Health Minister:

I did raise examples of where companies have told suppliers in Wales they would not deal with them.

• Sentence 3::No services in Wales or Scotland are registered with them (Care Quality Commission). Check out their website! Or read the Wikipedia article on them: It was established in 2009 to regulate and inspect health and social care services in England.
• Sentence 4 + 5:

Many companies told care providers in Scotland and Wales that they could not supply them with PPE. - this is confirmed over and over in both refernces. Just visit one of the suppliers, and you will see such a notice on their websites! Images from these are on other language WPs. Let me know if you want me to post them (eg the Gompels notice) here the English Wikipedia on fair use.

So, everything stated in my contribution has been referenced by two dependable, sources. If you like, I can send you other, more recent sources, but the last time I did this I was told that 2 was enough, and my other sources were deleted. just let me know. 'The language and phrasing of the incident'? This came from the reference! Nothing was added in any way. Please retract this accusation.

Your other accusation that my editing is disruptive? Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time on many articles... - where else have I been 'disruptive'? In which way did my contribution not develop the article, kept it balanced? Why was there no mention of this article previously? Are you attempting to censor this information? I take your warning as WP:BULLY and WP:DSAN. John Jones (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

You're simply wrong. You used a BBC article which focused heavily on the views of one person's POV to make several claims which the article did not. You claimed that scot and welsh providers were being prevented from obtaining PPE, the article does not say that at all. Even the Welsh gov response stated that providers could get PPE from councils nothing about any so called monopoly of PPE by England. You then used a Guardian article to repeat this, and ignored what the article was about which was apparent issues not confirmed and which was denied by the UK gov. That's censoring of good journalism to fit your POV. Plus 1 source to quote a supplier. I edited to remove the POV and Capewearer found some better sources and I've edited once more this morning.

It now reads:

On 10 April the UK Government sent out a document to PPE suppliers informing them that suppliers of certain medical equipment, including protective masks, gloves and aprons, must be registered with the Care Quality Commission, which regulates all health and social care services in England only. There was not a similar agreement in place between suppliers and Care Inspectorate Wales.[135][136] The Welsh Government advised care home providers that they should order through their local council, while Plaid Cymru leader, Adam Price, lodged a formal complaint with the European Union over the issue.[136] The chief executive of the care home umbrella group Scottish Care said that the UK's four largest PPE suppliers had said they were not distributing to Scotland because their priority was going to be “England, the English NHS and then English social care providers”.[137] The UK government reported that it had not instructed any company to prioritise PPE for any nation.[137] Healthcare supplier Gompels' website said at the time that "These restrictions are not something we have decided, they are a criteria given to us by Public Health England".[138]

This is a truer reflection of what the sources said and provides a much more balanced point of view. Possibly removing the last sentence would be better, as I don't think it adds anything. That is why the warning template that I used is entirely appropriate (inserting infactual information, not my fault if Wikipedia classes that as vandalism), considering the restrictions on the page. Games of the world (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

So you used a warning template because my pov is not balanced?

I did not say 'that scot and welsh providers were being prevented from obtaining PPE'; read it again. And neither does the article say that. Please also note that the use of capital letters in Scott and Welsh - might not be important to, but it is on Wikipedia.

Next you say that Welsh gov response stated... nothing about any so called monopoly of PPE by England. Did you not read my above answer to you? The Health minister said, :I did raise examples of where companies have told suppliers in Wales they would not deal with them.

In ordinary circumstances I would look at these errors in your accusation as nothing more than human error; but here, it is very obvious that your mistakes are completely political. You don't like the fact that I brought up this matter.

You then said that I ignored that fact that the PPE prevention policy was denied by the UK gov. Yes I did. Why? The UK Government still have not replied, formally. A reply is expected in the next few days, and I will update this at that time. You would know this of course. This is the only accusation which you have made which has any weight or form; that I did not look at it from the UK Gov's perspective!!! I will leave that to you, as you hardly look at any matter in this article from neither NI, Scotland or Welsh perspective!

I asked you a few questions earlier, which you still haven't answered:

Your other accusation that my editing is disruptive? Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time on many articles... - where else have I been 'disruptive'? In which way did my contribution not develop the article, kept it balanced? Why was there no mention of this article previously? Are you attempting to censor this information? I take your warning as WP:BULLY and WP:DSAN.

Please answer these questions. Your accusation is both WP:BULLY and WP:DSAN. John Jones (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not answer any questions from you. You got a warning for inserting non factual information. Which was proven, simple as. Games of the world (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Can not defend your accusation? Retract! Answer this: what were the infactual information and non factual information you mention? John Jones (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not retracting anything. Summaries like this are disgraceful. Obviously you haven't read the BBC report; it specifically mentions 2 (two) care homes. WOW 2 care homes. How pedantic! Still the same company. Games of the world (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

What are you on about now? You've lost one argument, and looking for another? Are you referring to anything to do with your accusation? If so start another thread. John Jones (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Accusation 2 by Games of the world

If I read it correctly (and it is a bit of a jumble) you'r referring to your edit here, where you were reverted by User:Capewearer? Or do you mean your previous edit when you summarised with Tweaked wording as mentioning one care home in wales specifically is not appropriate. There were two homes, but now of course you understand that. John Jones (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The only person who is losing an argument is you, as you fail to understand, POV, neutrality and presenting things in a balanced way and want to keep pushing an agenda which most do not agree with. Games of the world (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It's obvious to any person reading the above that you haven't answered my questions, and that your accusations were way, way out, so please go and pester someone else and stop your WP:BULLY and WP:DSAN, which I will follow up in due course. John Jones (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited COVID-19 pandemic in Wales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Senedd (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.
Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

——Serial ^# 11:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hundred (county division), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Llan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, on behalf of Jesus College Library, for adding the newly open-licensed images of the Red Book of Hergest to so many appropriate articles! -- Addedentry (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)