User talk:HDClear

3R Warning

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Har_Mar_Superstar, you may be blocked from editing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Har_Mar_Superstar&oldid=1206606584

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Har_Mar_Superstar&oldid=1206607358

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Har_Mar_Superstar&oldid=1206608692 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MainroomSHMainroom (talk • contribs) 17:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is this Patrick? Blkcateyes (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also you do realize a court referee doesn’t literally referee the judge right? You are writing as though there are two separate documents and findings when there is not. It was one finding that was a dismissal. Advocating for someone’s shows to be cancelled isn’t harassment because it only impacts the person financially, that does not meet the statue. That was laid out explicitly in the finding. Blkcateyes (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone wanted this added to the point where they cited a redacted version on a Google Drive, so let's look at the actual language of the document. HDClear (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read points 29 and 34, it clearly states threats to ‘financial security’ do not meet the criteria for harassment Blkcateyes (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that. But entering this at all on someone's Wikipedia page is a bit odd and requires some context. Let's not only tell one part of the story. The referee who was in the courtroom was judge / referee Franklin Reed. He wrote the document. It was signed by Judge Kerry Meyer.

The two respondants have been up to murky behavior for several years, so let's allow the document to tell that story as well. HDClear (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only context needed was the order. This is a place for nonfiction without editorializing. It doesn’t make sense to cite Reed differently than Meyer for the exact same document. Legally they have the same opinion, it’s the same document with both of their names on it. Sometimes clerks write the opinions, but it’s still the judges name that gets cited. It seems very misleading to make it seem like there are two different, opposing documents when that is simply not the case. And court documents are explicitly telling both sides here, both sides are represented in the document. I don’t know if you are just not familiar with legal documentation or are purposefully trying to obfuscate Blkcateyes (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then strike the entire paragraph. Apparently Christopher Robin Zimmerman wanted to share this news / "victory" with the world, but he presented a redacted version. And that is currently the only place this document lives online, so if you don't like the extra commentary, delete the entire paragraph. He also doesn't really have the right to just pretend his co-respondent doesn't have a name.

Why even bother writing an 8-page document if none of it matters outside of the ultimate decision?

The statute language hasn't evolved yet to the point of punishing this type of relentless harassment and defamation. That is one interpretation of this "story." HDClear (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your knitpicking and revealing that you have not read the paywalled articles in question.

The second article is a lurid but dumb description of a coke date where a person left Tillmann's house and then returned. It's all about that. HDClear (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^You're HDClear (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a problem with the nature of anonymity. Name the women. Can you? HDClear (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To lodge accusations at people and never bring those accusations into a court of law is problematic because it does not allow the accused to face his accusers. And this seems to be by design. Please don't be pedantic. You know what you're doing. None of these accusations have proven and there seem to be a group of people hellbent on punishing Tillmann to this day. HDClear (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Har Mar Superstar have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect:

"In March 2021, three women anonymously accused Tillmann of sexual misconduct, and then seven others said ..."

It's a total of 7 who have anonymously alleged. There apparently was never ever even a single police report. Odd, eh? HDClear (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Har Mar Superstar. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 23:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you wrote. It's a total of 7 people who have alleged misconduct. NOT 10. And why is it not appropropriate to list the person in the source who distrubuted the message on Social Media 3 years ago? HDClear (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's 3 + 4 = 7. Not 3 + 7 = 10. HDClear (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

raynaxmarie (pure of heart dumb of ass) tweeted "The Statement of the 7"and it set the ball rolling. "Three women" apparently was a phantom remainder from an earlier version of this wiki, because the Star Tribune published 3 anonymous accusations. Rayna Marie's document is a vestige of social-media-distrubuted intrigue. It's not a real, vetted document or source. It's a facebook post and a tweet. HDClear (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect:

"In March 2021, three women anonymously accused Tillmann of sexual misconduct, and then seven others said ..."

It's a total of 7 who have anonymously alleged. There apparently was never ever even a single police report. Odd, eh? HDClear (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You want Wikipedia to be truthful, sourced research paper. So do I. Please pay attention to details. They matter. HDClear (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Including the name of a random Twitter account doesn't really add anything. It is best to stick closely enough to how the issue is framed by sources. In this case, the source describes the statement posted on social media as A public statement from "a collective of survivors and allies" said that seven survivors have experienced abuse and assault"; given it's a collective thing, the name of the account isn't important. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right about the numbers thing, though. The source is less clear about that. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a total of 7. The Star Tribune ultimately reported the anonymous narratives of 4. So the other two are just extras that we're just supposed to somehow take the word of because a woman on Twitter said so

In fact, Rayna is the only person who apparently ever offered her identity for public consumption, and her story must have been so odd that even those publications opted to run the anonymous tales. HDClear (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but that source names her and links her Tweet. And it's a nebulous group of mostly anonymous 7. Not 10. HDClear (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4 (reported) + 2 (no reported) + Rayna = 7 HDClear (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more time: Apparently no one wanted to publish Rayna's accusation, even though she posted "The Statement of the 7." Which is beyond odd. HDClear (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix that in the opening sentence of this section. It's not "vandalism" if one is trying to make whatever this is more clear. HDClear (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7 people. 6 are anonymous. 1 was not taken seriously enough to report. No police reports. No charges. No convictions. This is what you're dealing with. Lot of collusion and whispers from the shadows. Report it accurately. HDClear (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a collective of 7 total. NOT 10. HDClear (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Sorry, I should've said it was for unsourced content instead. Anyways, please make sure to use sources other than Twitter posts first, since they're more reliable, plus an inline citation. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 00:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, and that's always good form, but I have seen people try to use tweets and a Google Drive document with redacted names as a source today. These are the games being played on this entry.

Is a denied restraining order really something that should be listed on someone's Wikipedia page? It seems like a nasty maneuver. But if you're gonna do that, at least be honest about what else the document says about the behavior of the people who went to court and the way the legal document describes their behavior.

I have followed this case, and I wish this entry were at least honest about what has been going on. HDClear (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just want you to know this isn't vandalism. It's an attempt to be fair about the now three-year-old information that has not yielded anything but a few similarly ancient newspaper articles that were potentially fairly flawed as investigative pieces go. You allow anonymous people to spew information uncontested and then pat yourself on the back for being a good, moral reporter? That's kinda odd. HDClear (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please at least fix this:

"In March 2021, three women anonymously accused Tillmann of sexual misconduct, and then seven others said they had experienced sexual misconduct by Tillmann ... "

AND THEN is not a thing. The 7 were all part and parcel of the same group. The "three women" are part of the 7, not in addition to the 7. HDClear (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we're gonna do that, why not just say "100 people?" It's just as silly and damaging. HDClear (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry for adding the wrong template. Look, I'm just trying to enforce the guidelines here. If you can provide a reliable source that clarifies the information, please add it. And if the stuff on Twitter's just speculation, then it shouldn't be added. If you think it's necessary and the source says that it's something other than 7, then feel free to remove the mention of it. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 01:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to reword it being as fair as possible. Just please don't accuse me of vandalism. Since none of this was ever really handled by the court system, the entire thing seems to be a bit wonky at best. HDClear (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Accusations of the 7 is nebulous internet gossip stuff. If you follow the 3 anonymous accusations, and then the additional accusion, you'd be reporting what the Star Tribune did. The other stuff is gossip and intrigue by an unreliable source. I'd get rid of reference to "The 7" altogether, because it just causes confusion and doesn't add much. HDClear (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^additional accusation HDClear (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Your recent editing history at Har Mar Superstar 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; read about 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. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 19:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]