User talk:Timothydw82

November 2022

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to John Ortberg, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Nick Levine (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at John Ortberg, you may be blocked from editing. Adakiko (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• John Ortberg The sources make those statements. Wikipedia reflects what wp:reliable sources state. Get a retraction. Adakiko (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you know the Ortbergs? WP:COI might be a relevant policy, although another relevant policy is WP:BLP. Maybe those two pages will give you some pointers as to how to deal with this. Although I have no connection to any of these people, I've long been perplexed by this situation. DefThree (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, yes I know them very well. I work with John and am deeply aware of all the dynamics and details. Daniel has been beyond cruel to the family and I think it's only fair to try and at least present a more neutral and accurate representation of the situation on Wikipedia. 2601:444:100:AD40:940E:497D:D2EA:D862 (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

If you could help me at least unlink most of Daniel's own self promoting articles from John's bio in Wiki that would be really helpful. Daniel is bent on promoting himself through this situation and is trying to use any opportunity to direct traffic and attention to himself. Also, Johnny was never volunteering with children, but was playing on the music team with Highschool students. So other facts in this article are misleading (by Daniel). Furthermore, Daniel stating that he believes John didn't adhere to his demands because he was transgender is utterly false. John and Nancy were planning to be apart of Daniel's wedding the very week that Daniel went public with what Johnny shared with Daniel. Daniel knows full well that John and Nancy were supportive of him as transgender. It is completely and utterly speculative false and has no place in this Wikipedia report. It's nefarious. Daniel has been proven over and over to not have any factual grounds for his smearing of John and the family. It's time to stop giving place to this false smear campaign. 2601:444:100:AD40:940E:497D:D2EA:D862 (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I removed the part about Daniel claiming that his concerns were dismissed because he's transgender. In the cited source, that statement was actually attributed to Nicole Cliffe, although I know that Daniel himself has said that. As for the rest, maybe you could post on WP:BLPN to get more eyes on this. There's supposed to be a high standard for sourcing in biographies of living people, so perhaps some of these sources don't qualify. Or perhaps they are being misrepresented somewhat. DefThree (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

thank you so much. I'm so deeply grateful. the hurt that Daniel has caused this family is beyond words. John loves Daniel very much and does not want to cause him any harm. but at least we can try and keep it fair. thank you. thank you. thank you. Timothydw82 (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)