User talk:CineMG

January 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Malibu High, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. LA Times is a wp:Reliable source. See WP:LATIMES Adakiko (talk) 06:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

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

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The Graduates of Malibu High, you may be blocked from editing. Adakiko (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The Graduates of Malibu High. Adakiko (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of false, libelous, and retracted reference

The revisions which were just made to "Young Warriors" aka "Graduates of Malibu High" are accurate. The LA Times article referenced was false and libelous and retracted by the publication. The source of the false and libelous information was the subject of a lawsuit which was settled with compensation and a written statement stating that the information provided to the LA Times was false and inaccurate. Please do not undo the legitimate revision. CineMG (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got a source for that? Adakiko (talk) 07:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how do you know this? Why are you so concerned with content related to Lawrence D. Foldes? Do you have a relationship with Foldes? You are required to disclose such a relationship. Adakiko (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly removed the statement "Deran Sarafian claimed he took over direction". Can you show evidence that the Los Angeles Times has "retracted" the statement that Sarafian had made that claim? If so, please do so, and if not then please don't use that as a reason for removing that statement from the article. Obviously whether Sarafian really did take over direction is a completely different matter: what you have been removing is the statement that he has claimed that he did so. JBW (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After becoming more familiar with Wikipedia policies I understand the reasons for your concerns and undoing my edits. I certainly had no intention of creating an edit war. The intention is to remove defamatory content which was discredited and the false claims acknowledged and reversed in writing by the perpetrator. The newspaper article containing the false and defamatory content was linked to multiple Wikipedia subjects. I will gladly locate and provide the substantiating references and documentation to support the need for my edits on the pages of the affected subjects. The statement - which follows - by @ToBeFree on another Adakiko section is directly relevant here: "In most cases, when someone explicitly complains about "defamatory content", that's a good point to stop reverting and to thoroughly analyze the situation. Even if you are completely convinced that the material a) qualifies for inclusion in the article (WP:UNDUE may be a concern), and b) is completely perfectly verifiable: Even then, we should wonder whether it's really worth insisting on keeping the material." Thank you for your attention to this matter CineMG (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

You posted on my talk page, and that of another administrator, as well as quoting the words of ToBeFree which related to another topic, not this one. For clarity, here is my talk-page reply to you.:

@CineMG: I see nothing libellous in that source that would affect Wikipedia reporting the news article. Even if the claim were proven false, the fact that such a claim was made could, in itself, be relevant to the topic. We might simply deem it relevant to then state that the claim was made, and then subsequently shown to be false. The issue for us editors would then be to decide if the whole story is relevant to our encyclopaedia.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to cite evidence that person x's claim was subsequently proven incorrect. Even so, claims of libel action can still be reported here (with due care over wording) where those claims, counter-claims, law suits and punishments are relevant to the subject of the article.

What we don't do is censor content because you don't happen to like seeing it, or are kicking up a fuss with nothing to back up your disruptive actions. You need to work with us, not against us, if your desire is to see balance and factual accuracy. BTW: If you have a Conflct of Interest (q.v.) in this matter, you need to declare it on your userpage. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CineMG, it isn't entirely clear to me what you are disputing. It sort of looks as though you are saying that the statement that Deran Sarafian took over direction was later accepted as false, but the statement which you removed didn’t say that, it merely said that he claimed he took over direction, which is a very different thing. Did he make that claim? If he did, then the statement you removed from the article is not false. If, on the other hand, he didn't make that claim, then what the Wikipedia article said was indeed false, and you were right to remove it. Can you clarify exactly what it is that you are saying is false and libellous? JBW (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policy on "edit-warring"

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Graduates of Malibu High. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. JBW (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]