User talk:EdwardsCluaser
Welcome
[edit]
|
Copyright problem on William P. Taulbee
[edit]Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page William P. Taulbee, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:
- Copying text from other sources
- Policy on copyright
- Frequently asked questions on Wikipedia's copyright policy
- Policy and guideline on non-free content
If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:
I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
EdwardsCluaser, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi EdwardsCluaser! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
COI
[edit]Do you have an association with Jason Altmire? Why are you adding 10+ yrs old content sourced to primary sources (such as bills on .gov websites), an obscure 2019 report authored by Altmire that not a single RS has reported on, and so on to the page? Why do your edits to thep age solely add puffery-style content (stressing his leadership, stressing how Obama and Clinton were grovelling for his endorsement), and remove NPOV descriptions that reflect what RS say? Altmire's has been rife with COI editing, so it entirely reasonable to ask. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Definitely fair to ask. I have no idea who this guy is and no connection to the page. I edited his page to add the Tulsa hearing which I had stumbled upon while looking at an unrelated Oklahoma page. I then made what I thought were non-controversial edits to clean it up, especially health care, which is generally what I do on Wiki. I went back to look at it a while later and was shocked that the page had been blown up, quite obviously by a political detractor watching the page. This concerned me. I added back the information that was already on the page that is legitimate and sourced. It’s against Wiki rules to remove sourced information because you think it’s favorable to a subject you dislike. I didn’t remove anything you wrote because I don’t know about that stuff. My concern is disruptive editing (WP:DE), which your edits appear to be. No problem with you or your politics, but I try to keep the integrity of legitimate information already on political pages and protect against biased disruptive editing. I hope you join me in this concern and the friendly nature in which I offer these comments.
Incorrect report on the vandalism noticeboard
[edit]Hi EdwardsCluaser, please do not make incorrect reports, such as your report of Snooganssnoogans at Special:Diff/959706905, on the vandalism noticeboard. Content disputes differ from vandalism, and should be resolved through dispute resolution. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 05:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Important notices
[edit]
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.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
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.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
— Newslinger talk 05:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
COI noticeboard
[edit]You have been mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jason_Altmire Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
June 2020
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jason_Altmire; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. creffett (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Jason Altmire 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Graywalls (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I am restoring information that was removed by a serial WP:DE. That editor repeatedly removes RS material relevant to the subject. My restorations are protected under WP:3RR as they are restoring legitimate RS information that was already included in the page and which was maliciously removed. Where the editor has made suggestions, such as page numbers and sources, I have incorporated them into the restorations. These restorations of legitimate biographical information do not constitute edit warring, although purposely removing material in an attempt to discredit a subject surely do. EdwardsCluaser (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so. You're involved in a content dispute. It is only waived when unsourced potentially libelous information is added to biography of living people articles. Graywalls (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you Graywalls for the clarification and for the clean up notice. This is easily resolved and it seems the best way is to perform the independent article clean up you suggest. I hope it will include review of the content in dispute as part of that clean up. Either way, I will respect the outcome of the clean up and not edit this page again. EdwardsCluaser (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- Do you have any connection, personally or professionally with the subjects you write about? Disclosure is required. Graywalls (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- I write about a variety of different subjects and always make constructive edits, mostly on biographies, based on RS citations. My interest in this particular case is the work of a serial disruptive editor with a long record of malicious and politically biased edits, here blatantly trying to discredit the subject by removing accurate RS content. In contrast, I add historical facts to improve biographies, mostly of more obscure figures no longer in the public eye. Wiki should encourage more of that; I would like to believe that is the side on which Wiki would fall. And no, I’m not and never have been paid, either. I find it amazing that in comparing our edit records Wikipedia would side with a blatantly biased and disruptive editor over a constructive editor. As I said, let the cleanup proceed on this page and please also consider the content in dispute. I have no doubt my edits will be found to be properly sourced and relevant to the article. In the meantime, I’ll disengage from Wiki entirely. Thanks again Graywalls for your interest in cleaning this up. EdwardsCluaser (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- See WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Not everything verifiable goes on Wikipedia. This becomes especially relevant for controversial subjects and articles about companies, people and organizations which often suffer from accumulation of cherry picked contents that selectively embellish favorable views for promotional and favorable publicity purposes. This is against the principle of neutral point of view. When you disagree with other editors, you go to the article's talk page and discuss and come to a consensus instead of unilaterally reinstating your perspectives repeatedly. Graywalls (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)