Jump to content

User talk:Butlerblog

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Commodore-64-Computer-FL
User page Talk Library Articles Essays Userboxes Edit summaries

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

My identity, my story

[edit]

Hi. I got your message about a "conflict of interest" in editing the entry that is about me. Years ago, a friend of mine composed the entry. I corrected some minor errors along the way. But more recently, people have been changing the entry in ways that complicate my identity, my story, my reputation. It is they who have a "conflict of interest." Their purposes are not neutral. My only purpose is a simple, factual, and fair-minded account of my life. I do not see how my purpose can possibly fall within a "conflict of interest." FaithfulAccount (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I don't even know who you are or what "conflict of interest" you might have in this. I do not know what authority you have to tell me how my own entry should be edited. Please explain. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FaithfulAccount (talk • contribs) 13:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FaithfulAccount: You can't see how you editing an article about you is a conflict of interest towards a neutral point of view? That in itself is a problem.
Let's start with the fact that it's not "your" entry. It's an encyclopedia article that belongs to Wikipedia, not you. We don't operate to create a marketing glossy for you. The items you've tried to remove are covered in existing sources. If you don't like what those sources say about you, you need to pursue that first (since we write based on what exists in reliable sources).
I don't want to see you end up blocked, but with a known COI, if you continue to edit war on this article to push your personal POV, that's a possible outcome.
Read the WP:COI guidelines that I linked for you and make sure you understand them. If you don't understand, ask and I'll do my best to help you. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Let me ask again two questions. One, who are you? How do I know that your say-so in this is legitimate? Can you verify your identity in this matter? I am not saying you are bogus. I am saying I have no way of knowing for sure. Two, how can you be so confident that the other people editing this entry are not engaged in "edit war"? It appears to me that that is the very thing they are doing. What assurance do I have that this discussion is fair? It does not seem fair to me. If this article does not belong to me but to Wikipedia, okay. No problem. But then it doesn't belong to the other editors either. And when there is a difference of opinion about what should go into an entry about an actual person, why shouldn't that person have the final say, as long as the entry remains factual? Please explain. Thank you. FaithfulAccount (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FaithfulAccount:
  • One, who are you?: I am an editor, just like every other editor on Wikipedia. As far as you are concerned, we have no way of verifying that you are you say you are, either. But the fact that you've outed yourself, we can presume you have a conflict of interest as already noted (you've kind of already outed yourself through public discussion and edit summaries, so you may as well disclose the COI).
  • how can you be so confident that the other people editing this entry are not engaged in "edit war"?: There is a specific definition here about what edit warring is: WP:EDITWAR. So the fact that edits have been going back and forth is an edit war. No parties have crossed the three revert rule bright line. But I point out that since you are a COI editor, if you edit war on an article with which you have a COI, that could potentially lead to you being blocked from editing.
  • What assurance do I have that this discussion is fair?: Because it is out in the open. Anyone can read it, anyone can participate in the discussion, and anyone can edit. Second, because we have strict guidelines that pertain to biographies of living persons, if something is in question per that guideline, it will be removed. Related to this, we have a process for dispute resolution. But you'd have to point out some specific policy/guideline based reason other than "I don't like what this article says about me" in order for that to have any traction. But that starts with specific discussion on the article talk page (which is where we discuss article content related issues).
  • And when there is a difference of opinion about what should go into an entry about an actual person, why shouldn't that person have the final say, as long as the entry remains factual? No. We edit by consensus, and with a COI, your POV is not considered neutral. That doesn't mean you can't participate in discussion, but your COI affects what other editors might consider regarding article content. If something violates WP:BLP guidelines, then point that out. But presently, this simply appears to be something in the article that you personally don't like. It's factual, and verifiably so, and is presented in a NPOV manner. If you disagree, discuss it on the article talk page and I'd recommend tagging it with the {{edit COI}} template. Tagging it isn't technically required, but you've already outed yourself, so you may as well be above board about it - that goes a long way with editor trust.
On a related note, the content that appears to be at issue is, quite frankly, the only thing presently keeping me from draftifying this article or proposing deletion. It very clearly does not meet the general notability guideline in its present state. Feel free to assist in correcting that through discussion. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's clarifying. Thanks. I understand better now. Sorry to say, I do not accept as fair the assumptions by which these matters are adjudicated. I want the entire article deleted. FaithfulAccount (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FaithfulAccount: I want the entire article deleted For reasons already outlined, that's determined by community consensus, not your personal preferences. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then that being so, sadly, Wikipedia is not a safe or fair place. It can't be trusted. I see that now. Wow. We sure don't need yet more adversarial spaces in our culture these days. We need more understanding, gentleness, compassion, etc. I wonder who believes that any more. Clearly, Wikipedia does not. FaithfulAccount (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Wikipedia is only as reliable as its sources. In a sense, we only summarize what a majority of reliable sources state. If you feel that sources are unfairly covering you, then you should try dealing with the problem at the source. - ZLEA T\C 16:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FaithfulAccount: You still have not addressed what was asked of you - to discuss the content you have issue with and why at the article's talk page. Instead of doing that, you're trying to blame Wikipedia for not being "fair" or "trustworthy" when you won't even follow the existing process that exists to ensure a fair, trustworthy, and unbiased encyclopedia.
You've essentially said that because you don't like the process, it therefore "is not a safe or fair place". If you are who you say you are, I would expect someone with your academic credentials to recognize a logical fallacy when they see one.
It is not adversarial to ask you to work within the construct the community has agreed upon. The very fact that you have refused to do that shows exactly where the adversarial element is. If you won't follow the process nor specifically address the exact issue you have a problem with, then the problem isn't Wikipedia. It's you - and there is no lack of compassion in pointing that out - it's more like tough love. I (as a volunteer, just like everyone else here) took time to explain all of that to you and even offered to shepherd the process. And for that I evidently lack understanding, gentleness, compassion? That is utter nonsense. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe I am doofus. I wouldn't disagree. But I honestly do not understand exactly what would constitute a fair resolution to this matter. Maybe it's because I'm 75 years old. Really. But help me out here. What can I do that would make you say, "Yep, Ray has a good point"? Seriously. This does matter. FaithfulAccount (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will also notice, as I have noticed just in the last few minutes, that several more edits have been introduced into my story in recent days. For example, my graduation from Dallas Theological Seminary is now mentioned twice, which is unnecessary. But if I clean these bloopers out, will I be flagged as violating a Conflict of Interest? You see how odd this situation is becoming? Bewildering to me. FaithfulAccount (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooh. And I also see that YOU are the one editing my bio. You are the one who started this edit-war. I didn't. I have to wonder why. And when you say that you are an editor at this site, it's not like you're an employee with some legitimate say-so. You're just a guy, like me, on the site. I get it now! So my question is, why did you pick this fight? Why are you insisting on changing my account of my own life? Do we know each other? Have I wronged you in the past somehow? Is there something we need to talk about? What the heck is going on here? FaithfulAccount (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FaithfulAccount: As I started reading this series of replies, I was still willing to help give you additional guidance, but then this last one takes things over the top. Our civility policy requires editors to assume good faith of the motivations of other editors. Calm down a bit and reread your last comments - does that sound like you're assuming that I am acting in good faith?
It's clear that you're not here to build an encyclopedia; you're operating a single-purpose account solely to edit areas of the encyclopedia that cover you. I've tried to help you, but you really don't appear capable of listening to what guidance is given to you.
If you have something specific you want to address with regards to the article's content, the proper venue for that is the article's talk page (and ideally, you should use the edit COI template for disclosure). Other than that, we're done here. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear to be so, sadly. Maybe we'll be friends someday. FaithfulAccount (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bot run

[edit]

Hey, can you run your bot again on the various TV date categories? Gonnym (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: Yes - I need to do some updating to the bot and get back to running it daily as I was before. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, even better. Let me know if there is anything on my side you need. Thanks! Gonnym (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When your run your bot, can you run it also on List of The Graham Norton Show episodes so it fixes those dates? Thanks! Gonnym (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide more information on why you canceled all edits

[edit]

The Doug Wilson entry was effectively written by him though posted by a third party, and effectively leaves out everything for which he is actually known. My edits were meant to add at least some of this information to make the entry objective, mostly with direct quotes from Mr. Wilson himself from his own writing and online videos. To say "some of this may be OK, but there was too much wrong to go piece by piece" is not that helpful in working to adjust the edits. Could you share just a few pieces of what's wrong so that they can be adjusted perhaps? Otherwise a fluff piece on a HIGHLY controversial and polarizing figure will be what remains on Wikipedia. TruthTellerMoscow (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TruthTellerMoscow:The problems with your edit:
  • The lead should be a summary of what is in the article. You're adding information to the lead that is not covered in the article. See WP:LEADDD (or for more detail: WP:LEAD)
  • Some of what you added is original research and is cited by a primary source. See WP:NOR (If you're reading something by Wilson and interpreting it and using a primary source to cite that, that is original research. You need to be summarizing what is found in secondary sources.)
  • You have added information that is not cited, which is also considered original research.
  • Some of your sources are blogs, which we do not generally use as sources. See WP:SELFPUBLISH
  • You have serious BLP violations which attribute uncited direct quotes from the subject. Not only must these be cited, that cite must be from a reliable source, not someone's blog. See WP:RS
  • You have copied verbatim from other articles without proper attribution (although you did indicate the article you copied from in your edit summary, you didn't fully note this properly) WP:COPYWITHIN
  • Some of the material copied is more specific to the church and not necessarily to Wilson. It's already covered there. And, you have to be careful with the wording, especially in a WP:BLP article.
  • External links should not be placed in the body of an article. See WP:EL. Also consider WP:ELBLP
You did this all within a single edit. In review, there's really nothing useable in your edit.
Some other things that are problematic:
  • You stated here that "The Doug Wilson entry was effectively written by him though posted by a third party" - Where is your evidence for that? Regardless, your edits are problematic and whether the article was started by Wilson or not has nothing to do with the problems within your edits. We're only addressing that problem.
  • Your username indicates that you are very likely not a neutral party either, which is just as problematic as if there were COI edits from Doug Wilson (which you haven't actually provided any evidence of).
ButlerBlog (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are serious BLP violations in this edit [1], I am reverting back to status quo ante.Someone else has already reverted this based on the BLP problems within your edits. The WP:ONUS is on you to support your suggested inclusions, which you need to do on the article's talk page and get consensus before including them. IF they were to be included, they need very serious editing AND actual reliable sources, not self-published blogs. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Butlerblog&oldid=1255374315"