User talk:1974bug

July 2015

Hello, I'm General Ization. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Robert Allen Mukes, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! General Ization ^Talk 22:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Robert Allen Mukes has been reverted.
Your edit here to Robert Allen Mukes was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/https://www.facebook.com/Robertmukesofficial) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1974bug, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi 1974bug! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Soni (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Robertamukes, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Robertamukes, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Robert Allen Mukes. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

Please do not perform any more reverts on this page, even if you know it or believe it to be right. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are reverting unsourced edits from anonymous editors. There are better ways to deal with this problem - I will request temporary page protection to prevent unregistered editors from making changes. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon: I've left a message at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Robertamukes. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected

Hello again. The article has been granted temporary protection - only registered, autoconfirmed users may edit it now. The protection will expire on October 4. Temporary protection is quite effective at "drive-by" vandals who are easily deterred and move on to other targets. If there are more persistent, agenda-driven vandals, then stronger measures can be employed.

Let us take this period of calm to review what was detailed at the sockpuppet investigation page.

Wikipedia has a strong interest in maintaining impartiality. That is why we strongly recommend that editors who are either the subject of an article, or are in some way connected to the subject of an article, to refrain from editing the article altogether. We do not prohibit it, but we do expect editors with a connection to an article's subject make a proper disclosure when they choose to write about it.

You should make a proper disclosure of your relationship to Robert Mukes by placing this code on your user page, located at User:1974bug.

{{UserboxCOI|1=Robert Allen Mukes}}

Robert should do the same on his account on his user page.

Wikipedia has unfortunately been seen by others - incorrectly - as just another social media site to promote themselves and their interests. This is not true, which is why we have such extensive rules on conflict of interest.

Wikipedia has strict rules about edit warring, one of which is the three-revert rule (which has some exceptions). I think your edits were well-intented reverts of obvious vandalism, so they fell within the exceptions. Just be careful - the line is a thin one and easily crossed, as the difference between vandalism and good-faith edits is sometimes subjective. If in doubt, do not revert and instead follow the protocols of dispute resolution.

As a side note to that point, Robert must understand that neither he nor his associates have any right of ownership or editorial control over the article about him. Other editors are free to edit the article, perhaps substantially over time. No single editor can claim to have sole authority over it and insist that it remain at a version they prefer. Article content is arrived at by consensus, and editors are expected to assume that others are acting in good faith unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.

Whenever you add content to a page, it must come from a reliable source that is independent of the subject being discussed. This usually means mainstream media organizations or publications with an established reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. This is especially important when dealing with a biography of a living person.

Self-published sources are not considered reliable. This includes Robert's own official website and social media accounts... they can be considered valid primary sources for only basic facts (e.g. birth date, marital status, etc.).

Any unpublished personal knowledge or experience from you or him cannot be used, as this is considered unverifiable original research. Wikipedia content comes from summarized, paraphrased versions of material previously published in reliable sources.

Hopefully this gives you some better insight on the expectations of Wikipedia contributors. There are a lot of rules, but they were made so that this can be trusted as a high-quality, impartial reference for everyone. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I truly appreciate your time and expertise. I'm still a little baffled that the vandalism could have potentially stayed posted on there until the end of time with no notice or without any sources cited, yet there are so many rules that I have broken with my good intentions, and were caught immediately. I guess I won't ever understand this completely. I will look at doing the disclosure notice, but I thought L235 did something in place of that (?). Thanks again. I do appreciate the time you have spent on this. 1974bug (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism can be caught and reverted sometimes by one or more automated scripts, called "bots", but they're not foolproof. What attracted my attention is another special filter than scans for edits by users with similar names to that of the article being edited (an alert to autobiographies). When Robert edited the page using his account, it appeared on the filter.

No disrespect to him, but in general, vandalism to topics of lesser interest might sit unnoticed for quite some time. High-interest topics attract a high degree of vandalism, but it's noticed and remedied more quickly. Such is the nature of a collaborative project operated by volunteers. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I placed the disclosure notice on your user page for you. I hope I did not overstep my bounds. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not. Thank you. So am I not allowed to make any edits, like adding more appropriate sources and things like that? 1974bug (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see this until today. Yes, you can make edits to the page. Just please ensure that you have reviewed and understood the policy on biographies of living persons, as well as what types of sources are considered reliable and independent.

The temporary page protection ended on October 5. As of today, one week later, no vandalism edits have re-occurred. As I thought, the vandals have moved on to something else. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drm310 the vandal is back at it again, adding the same exact things as before. Can you help me determine the next course of action? Is there anything that can even be done when the user is anonymous? What a headache! Is appreciate your advice. 1974bug (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]