User talk:Doctor Franklin

Welcome!

Hello, Doctor Franklin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Lihaas (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

1RR rule

All articles in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area are subject to a 1 revert rule, meaning that editors may not perform more than one revert in any 24 hour period. You made one revert while logged out and have now made another revert while logged in. If you do not self-revert you will most likely be brought up for sanctions.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Poles are not Arabs. Polish-Israeli historical disputes are not covered by this rule.

The subject of the article was a Prime Minister of Israel so I would not be confident using that argument if I were you. Also, note, that edit warring, which is what you are doing, will most likely result in your block whether you break the rules in law or in spirit. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention this could be construed as sockpupettry.Lihaas (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't care if he had been shoe salesman. The man stated that Poles were natural antisemites. That is part of his legacy and it needs to be on the page. He said it. It was published. Deal with it.

Okey, well that comment shows you have no understaanding of how WP works And yu are mentioned here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/EnforcementLihaas (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Language is tricky

Your use of the word "libelous" could be interpreted as in some way a legal threat, which of course is not acceptable here. You might want to pick some other term in the future. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

POV

Hi Doctor Franklin. From my perspective it is clear that seanjsavage has a COI on certain matters on the Gary Hart page. However, you have demonstrated that you have a lot of emotion in this -- your own ax to grind, whatever that may be. WP:ADVOCACY (and please read that) is probably more damaging overall to Wikipedia than COI. So I suggest you take it easy and really aim for NPOV in everything you write in Wikipedia, be it on a Talk page or in an article. The Gary Hart article is now on my watch list. Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

And I do mean what I wrote at COIN - if you continue to demonstrate WP:ADVOCACY-like behavior, by writing overheated comments and adding POV language to the article, I will bring you to ANI, where you will likely be topic-banned. I could probably do it now and succeed based on your track record to date alone. But in Wikipedia we give people a chance. This is your first warning. Jytdog (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't edit a lot here on WP. I try to focus my efforts on fixing pages were something is obviously wrong. You will note from my history that I faced a complaint to Arbitration after about 2 posts on Shamir's page for editing unsubstantiated claims of ethnic violence. You will also notice that what I disputed was proven correct. I don't appreciate threats or accusations.

It appears to me that others are editing the Gary Hart page to push a POV which wants to give undue credit to accusations against the man which were never properly substantiated in 1988 from limited sources of dubious reliability, and which are not verifiable now per Wiki RS. It is also clear that part of that lack of NPOV involves removing Hart's 1988 campaign from the historical context that the American media had previously not invaded a candidates personal life, and certainly not in the tabloid manner of the Miami Herald. People at the time considered that offensive, and some who lived through the times and remember it still find it offensive. Why that happened is now subject to debate, and recent contradiction by the Herald's Editor Tom Fiedler. It is not NPOV for WP to simply repeat the Herald's stories, and recently added "refreshed memory" as Wiki Facts when the apparent source of the Herald's accusations against Hart, doesn't agree with its prior published statement as to why it picked up investigating Hart's personal life.Doctor Franklin (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

it's a warning, not a threat. You can heed it or not! Jytdog (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks / Let's work this out

Dear Doctor Franklin: First, thanks for educating me about COI policy. Back in the day when I corrected the misstated town where Carl Hiaasen grew up, I assumed that I was fully in line with Wikipedia policy and that using my real name and stating my relation to Carl up front on my user page would BOOST my credibility and make it clearer to anyone and everyone that my correction of that tiny fact was legit. Now I see the COI policy and understand the rationale behind it. And I see that, to fully comply with policy and avoid any misunderstandings, I could have stated my affiliation and the suggested change on Carl's Talk page as a request for edit. And the same goes moreso for the Gary Hart page because its content is controversial.

Any future contributions from me to the Gary Hart page will be in the form of edit requests on the Talk page, and perhaps citations on the article page. This is a controversial topic and, given the recent book and associated articles about Gary Hart and the coverage of him, and the various corrections and disputes regarding that, I see that claims that may not fall in line with your understanding and interpretations of this topic may initially strike you as lies and malfeasance. But please consider the possibility that I'm actually here trying to improve the article and see to it that the relevant facts from all sides are conveyed in a neutral, balanced, informative manner. And please examine the sources and facts yourself to validate those suspicions before acting upon them.

We probably have different points of view about many things, but if we stick to the facts and to Wikipedia policy, those different drives and opinions can complement one another and produce great things. From your POV, is there anything further I can do to achieve that? Seanjsavage (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

October 2015

This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at Polish census of 1931, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The anti-Polish sentiment expressed in your edit summary is not acceptable. If you have issues with the content of the article, take it to the article's talk page. Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)