User talk:EditorAtLarge1976

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, EditorAtLarge1976. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Institute of Economic Affairs, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Escape Orbit.

No conflict of interest here. I used IEA study materials when doing my economic degree. They were excellent. I became interested in the organisation and read a biography of the founder. I've never worked for them as staff or an outside consultant, indeed, I have never written about me, family, friends, colleagues, a company/organisation I worked for, a client or a competitor on Wikipedia or any media. I was inspired to become a Wikipedia Editor after reading the Randy Pausch book, The Last Lecture. I definitely recommend it. So, when I was looking at the pile of books I read recently that had some interesting facts, I started in on kangaroos and Antony Fisher. When I saw the IEA wiki page I was surprised at the negative slant since their student materials are so helpful (and free! which was helpful when I was living on a student budget). So, I did some research to find out more about the organisation. EditorAtLarge1976 (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right wing and pressure group

If you wish to suggest a change to what the Institute of Economic Affairs article says, contrary to what sources say, please raise the matter on the talk page. Could you also explain there where you are getting your information from. Thanks. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a relationship with the BBC, therefor I would not edit the BBC wiki page. The BBC has a style guide on how they refer to organisations. Presenters are not allowed to refer to the IEA as a 'right wing pressure group' as that is considered pejorative rather than factual. It is tabloid style writing. The IEA is referenced only as a free market think tank, or the UK's oldest free market think tank. EditorAtLarge1976 (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained more than once Wikipedia is not the BBC. Therefore your continued insistence in making Wikipedia conform to what you claim is BBC style is disruptive. Wikipea is an encyclopaedia. If enough sources describe the IEA as "right wing", then that's what Wikipedia may use. Please revert your changes and we can discuss them first on the talk page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree that Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia should have editorial style descriptions of organisations or events rather than factual. While BBC is not an encyclopaedia, it does have a public duty of informing the public and has had an internal dialogue on how various entities should be referred to in its style guide to be neutral (as it is oft accused of bias). Wikipedia also strives to be unbiased information, which is why the information should be factual, not editorial in nature. EditorAtLarge1976 (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding how Wikipedia and encyclopaedias work. Wikipedia strives for neutrality, and be editorially unbiased. This essay explains your misunderstanding; NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content

"The word "neutral" in the NPOV policy is frequently misunderstood by new editors, visitors, and outside critics. To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, "It does not mean what they think it means." They think it means that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove content and sources they perceive as "not neutral". They do not understand "neutral" in the Wikipedia sense of the word, and think NPOV means content should have "No Point Of View", when nothing could be further from the truth."

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree that encyclopaedias, including Wikipedia, are meant to allow bias. Neutrality means editorially unbiased. Factual information that is not cheerleading nor hostile is unbiased. Content that is intended to puff up or malign a person, place, item, organisation, etc. is biased. Agree that Wikipedia is not the BBC. Didn't suggest it was. However, the BBC (although widely perceived to have a 'left wing' bias) is unlike the Guardian (left wing), the Telegraph (right wing), or other privately owned news sources, in that it is a quasi-governmental entity and as such has internal style guides that have been internally debated to aim for neutrality. The BBC style guide has rejected labelling this organisation as 'right wing' as it has determined that it is pejorative to do so. EditorAtLarge1976 (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages, as you did to Institute of Economic Affairs. This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Institute of Economic Affairs. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Hello, EditorAtLarge1976, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Rm1133747 (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Engage at Talk:Institute of Economic Affairs rather than repeatedly reverting your changes that other editors have undone, and that two editors have explained that they are inappropriate on article talk. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:EditorAtLarge1976 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: ). Thank you. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Institute of Economic Affairs. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]