User talk:EPGuy64

Hi EPGUy64. I've noticed that you've removed my contribution to this page in it's entirety twice now. You haven't provided any reason for doing this. My assumption is you're engaging in either "Edit Warring" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring) or "Vandalism" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism) to the page. My post is directly sourced from a local news article about the Rawson-Neal Hospital. It's a controversy related to the Rawson-Neal facility, and I believe it's posted in the correct location under the "Controversy" tab. Please respond to this "talk" forum directly before removing my post so that we can avoid escalating this. Thank you.

Hi. You mentioned the news article is libelous. You also said it was investgated and unfounded. With both of these claims you have provided no documentation or references to back them up. It appears you are trying to sweep a controversial news report under a rug to protect the perp. Wikipedia claims need to be sourced. Wikipedia is not built on opinions and unsourced claims. You are welcome to edit the page once you can provide sources to back your claims. If you continue blanking people's contributions I'll request for you to be blocked and the edits locked. Please abide by the rules. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.49.138.221 (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Since making a request to stop removing content from Wikipedia you have maliciously deleted my edit several more times without any references or sources cited. You have claimed the article referenced in my edit is "libel". This claim of libel is your opinion only as there is no evidence sourced to back this up. In reading the article comments (as you suggested) it appears to further strengthen the case of bullying brought up by the investigative author. If you have evidence of this being libel I suggest you take it up with the Nevada Current News and stop vandalizing Wikipedia pages. I have again restored my edits based on information sourced from a public news story about Rawson-Neal Hospital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.219.59 (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.219.59 (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• EPGuy42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalised past 4th warning). 96.60.219.59 (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I noticed that you recently removed content from Rawson-Neal Hospital without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rawson-Neal Hospital, 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 the sandbox for that. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. Frood 05:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing. Frood 23:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:EPGuy64 reported by User:Frood (Result: ). Thank you. Frood 23:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello EPGuy64. You are risking a block for edit warring. There may still be time for you to respond to the complaint. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I would like to preface this with I am a new Wikipedia user and, as such am not terribly familiar with the how-to’s for responding to moderator messages or the appropriate placement for said responses. I would like the opportunity to respond to the edit warring allegations and the comments regarding libel. I just need to know it’s going to the right place and the right person(s) are going to see it. Thanks in advance for the opportunity to discuss and for pointing me in the right direction as to how to accomplish that. Talkbacks were sent to both Frood and EdJohnston, as I am not sure who I am supposed to be responding to specifically. EPGuy64 (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The complaint about you may be closed if you will promise to make no more edits of the article on Rawson-Neal Hospital until consensus is reached on the talk page. Let me know your answer. EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

On the moderator's page, you had said, "It is possible that some of this material could be worked over more carefully for neutrality." I feel as though I was doing that when I added purposely omitted material directly from the cited Nevada Current article. In it's current state, the edit reads as though Dr. Adams was dismissed because he filed a bullying complaint. This is not what he is quoted as saying in the article. He was dismissed after his complaints were investigated and found to have no merit. Additionally, I have a problem with the user using the author's word and Dr. Adams' word as the basis for the claim Dr. Adams's provided witnesses were never interviewed by investigators. There was an on-record quote from a representative of each investigating body that spoke directly to these claims. My very last edits added all of this information to bring the original edits in line with Wikipedia goals of neutrality. I would ask that those edits be considered to be re-applied if the other user is insistent in keeping the edit attached to the Rawson-Neal Hospital page. Thank you. EPGuy64 (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I would also add that since Dr. Adams's claims of bullying have been investigated and found to have no merit by the responsible investigative authorities, why would it be worthy of inclusion to the controversy section of the Rawson-Neal Hospital page? Since there were no victims and no abuse, this also brings into question the motivations of the Nevada Current for even publishing the story. No other Nevada news source did. EPGuy64 (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

At present the Rawson-Neal Hospital article seems to follow what the Nevada Current says rather carefully. Can you see any statement in the Wikipedia article that are not backed up by the Nevada Current? Our article says "All complaints of bullying made to the Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health were investigated and found to be without merit." The inference that Adams was dismissed simply because he made the claim could be made by the reader, and it is not ruled out by anything the Nevada Current said. Wikipedia does admit that the body who received his complaint found his report to be 'without merit'. That wouldn't necessarily be a fireable offense, so the actual reason for his dismissal does not seem to be on record. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I would ask you to review my last edits before they were reverted. They bring neutrality to the disputed edit; they eliminate the ambiguity currently in the disputed edit; and they are supported by the Nevada Current article. There is no ambiguity in the Nevada Current as to when Dr. Adams was dismissed. He is quoted as saying he was dismissed after his complaint was found to have no merit. There is ambiguity as to this in the disputed edit. The Wikipedia reader could infer he was dismissed as a result of filing the complaint, and this is what the other user wants those readers to believe. It is factually not true (as written in the disputed edit), and it should be changed to accurately reflect Dr Adams's quote as to when he was dismissed in the Nevada Current article (my changes did that). I'm not sure if you saw something I added prior to your last reply (I don't want you to feel I'm being pushy - it's not my intent), so I will mention it again: Since Dr. Adams's claims of bullying have been investigated and found to have no merit by the responsible investigative authorities, why would it be worthy of inclusion to the controversy section of the Rawson-Neal Hospital page? No victims + no abuse = no controversy. Since there were no victims and no abuse, this brings into question the motivations of the Nevada Current for even publishing the story. No other Nevada news source did. It also brings into the question as to why the user wants to slant his edits in a fashion to cast Dr. Bradley in a negative light. Wikipedia isn't (nor should it be) a platform for somebody to do this. EPGuy64 (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for adding more for you to read. I do want to specifically address the ambiguity in the disputed edit as it pertains to the witnesses that were allegedly not interviewed. First, it is only an allegation that these witnesses haven't been interviewed. Neither Dr. Adams, the reporter, nor the other user know this to be accurate with any certainty. Without that certainty, it is only "alleged" that those witnesses haven't been interviewed. It's also important to note there was no specific indication or a specific citation as to whether Dr Adams's witnesses were eyewitnesses or character witnesses. There is a huge difference. There were on-record quotes from a representative of each investigating body that spoke directly to the claims that witnesses were not interviewed - pointing out: "They (the assigned investigator) are tasked with reviewing the written complaint and any statements provided by those involved or having firsthand information." The key words are "involved" and "firsthand information". When reading the disputed edit, the Wikipedia reader could infer there was a sloppy or biased investigation done, which again, is what the user wants the reader to believe. My edits, which were quotes taken directly from the Nevada Current, eliminate such an inference. EPGuy64 (talk) 05:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm closing the complaint at WP:AN3 with a warning to you not to revert again unless you have first obtained consensus on the article talk page. Unfortunately in your above writing I get the impression you are scrounging for any possible way to defend the hospital. The hospital could have made a statement but per what Nevada Current said they didn't choose to reply. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for closing the complaint and for taking the time to entertain my questions and concerns. So I can fully understand and remain in compliance, can you please explain what is meant by consensus? In other words, what does that look like exactly? Who does that specifically involve? Does it require obtaining the other user's permission? Somebody else’s? Unfortunately, given my current level of understanding (which is based largely upon this entire series of events), the official position appears to be that an original publisher has some sort of property right to an edit - regardless of whether it conforms to the Wikipedia goal of content being accurate, sourced and neutral or not. How is that fundamentally fair? Will I be allowed to post a sourced, accurate and neutral edit to the page, one that is original and independent from an existing entry? Or will that be considered edit warring? If I can publish such an edit, will I be extended the same courtesies? The disputed edit’s current state is largely due to additions I had made in order to achieve neutrality. Some (not all) of those changes were changed by the other user for the purposes of slanting the edit in a desired direction. While the disputed edit is in a better place than it was when first published, it could be further improved for neutrality (you had suggested as much yourself). What happens if the other user decides to revert the edit back to the state it was when he first published it? Is there a recourse available to have it reverted back to the way it is now? EPGuy64 (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

There isn’t anywhere in the Nevada Current article that claims the hospital was even asked, let alone declined, to provide a statement. Rawson-Neal Hospital is operated by the State of Nevada and falls under the Division of Public and Behavioral Health. A lengthy quote from Lisa Sherych, who is the administrator of the Division of Public and Behavioral Health, was cited in the Nevada Current. That quote directly spoke to the bullying allegations and subsequent investigation of the complaint. That quote is/was the State’s/Rawson-Neal’s Hospital’s statement on the matter. I think that any misunderstanding regarding this can be directly attributed to the poor quality of the article. The Nevada Current is known, in the Nevada media circles, as the National Inquirer of the State of Nevada. Thanks again for engaging me in a polite, respectful and friendly manner. I appreciate it. EPGuy64 (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Would it be correct to say that you personally have some relationship to these events? EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Can I assume this same question was asked of the other user? EPGuy64 (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)