User talk:67.131.55.89

June 2019

Your recent editing history at Wilfred Reilly 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sitush (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, 67.131.55.89. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Wilfred Reilly, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the COI guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID).

Editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted.

• Based on your report at WP:BLPN and your edit summaries referring to me at the article itself, I suspect that you may be conflicted and thus need to take care as explained above. Sitush (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

So, about that COI...

Instead of edit warring and rushing to add unreliable sources, please discuss on the article's talk page. You should also address the COI concerns mentioned above. Grayfell (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

There's no "edit war" here. The initial conflict that is described in the text above our conversation occurred when 5-6 admins and users, apparently working together, made many very major changes (some questionable to me) to a regionally significant page I keep an eye on. A fair amount of this material was later removed by other users. My initial impression, yesterday, was that this seemed to be happening again: obviously apologies if that's not true. Re-reading your edits, the page basically looks fine.

I will say: I'm not sure exactly sure WHY some of the sources removed from this, and other public-intellectual pages over the past few months, are considered "non-notable." Quillette? American Spectator? National Review (separate page)?! Is there an issue here other than quite major sources leaning right? Anyhow, all the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.55.89 (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Please answer the above questions. Do you have a conflict of interest? This IP address has been focused on this page for over a year.

Quillette is listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as generally unreliable, because it has been abused so often on Wikipedia. It does not have a positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking, which is the simplified standard we use. It can be used for opinion content, but only with caution, and only with some specific reason.

It is common for notable outlets to be unreliable, but individual works in these outlets are not therefor notable by themselves. Ideology is not the deciding factor, at least not by itself. All sources are judged in context, so without commenting on other pages, this doesn't seem important. A person wrote an article for a platform with notoriously lax editorial oversight.... Some context from a reliable source would help. Encyclopedia's are tertiary sources. Wikipedia is not a directory of WP:PRIMARY sources. It's sometimes reasonable to mention the existence of a work, but only if there is a reason. Otherwise this is a subtle form of promotion, as it is implying to readers that these works are encyclopedically significant without any outside indication. Grayfell (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

This will probably be my last post, but, as re COI: no. I do find the "PROBING QUESTIONS" asked on anon online platforms, like Wiki, Twitter, and reddit, to sometimes be a bit entertaining. How do you KNOW I'm being honest (I am)? Wouldn't using an Admin profile completely remove any links between this IP and 1-2 pages? But, teasing aside, I am a real person who comments on in-region things I find interesting. During the current lull, you guys will probably see quite a bit more content from me. I will note that this is a shared IP for a large building, so I have no idea what every person here has said in the past.

If I decide to edit this page again, I'll list some more conventional sources. Thanks for the Quillette note, although I don't entirely agree with it.

---