User talk:Joesonyx

Welcome!

Hello, Joesonyx, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Dwarfism. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! SQGibbon (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome SQGibbon! Joesonyx (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kriyananda page

Hi Joesonyx, thank you for your input on the [Swami] Kriyananda page. I appreciate your clearly reasoned and unbiased arguments there. All the best, Jack B108 (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I apparently figured out how to make a link to my email address show up at my user page, so feel free to try that, too. [email used to be an automatic feature here]. Best regards, Jack B108 (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Please note that accusing editors of bias based on their imagined affiliations is against our no personal attacks policy and continuing to make or imply such accusations may be grounds for being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Here's your first formal warning on the matter:

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to Talk:Kriyananda. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello YWORO, OK, I won't do that any more. I'm new at this, so I'm learning to an extent from example. Did you know that something similar was done to me on the same page earlier? SEE: 'You mention an organization called SRF, Yogananda, Kriyananda and some dispute? Are you representing an organization in this discussion? Otherwise, why would you bring it up.'

Joesonyx (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to warnings, any experienced editor may deliver them. I am not an admin and would not be blocking you myself. The way this works is there are 4 levels of warning, though if it's clear an editor is not brand new to Wikipedia, warnings usually start with level 2 (Level 1 has a welcome message not appropriate unless the user's talk page is empty). So, if you persisted, you might get a level 3 and level 4 warning. If you continued after level 4, then appropriate reports would be made and an admin would review the situation. Blocking admins cannot be involved in a dispute, so even if I were an admin, another admin would still be requested to review and block. See WP:UW and WP:BLOCK for more details.

Please note that the similar message you received was a question, not a statement or accusation really. We have a conflict of interest policy. Technically, if you are affiliated with some group, this should be disclosed on your user page and you should be very cautious about editing related articles. And while you don't have to clearly answer such a question yes or no, many Wikipedia editors will assume the answer is in the affirmative if you refuse to answer one way or another, since disclosure of such conflicts is required. If I had such a conflict of interest, I might not answer, but I'd make sure I added the disclosure to my user page.

Really, it's best not to edit any article on subjects you are affiliated with. You see, we want editors who are here to improve Wikipedia in general. Editors who are here to promote particular subjects and who edit only related articles are known as single-purpose accounts. The best way not to be known as a single-purpose account is to edit articles on which you are knowledgeable, but with which you have no affiliation, just for the pleasure of improving them. After gaining experience with our policies, then you might be able to edit articles for which you have a conflict of interest as long as you can do it neutrally without seeming to promote the content.

BTW, when Red Rose first started editing, it appeared that he might be promoting the SRF and might have been biasing related articles toward that organization. He was asked if he had a conflict of interest and denied being affiliated with SRF. That's really how I got involved in these articles, trying to keep them neutral and also teaching Red Rose the ropes around here, since he was unfamiliar with our policies and was making all kinds of unintentional mistakes. Hope all this helps. Yworo (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yworo. I don't know, BTW, whether to write on your talk page or here to reply to this. Q1 What is the custom on WP?

To be regarded as a CofI editor, Q2 does your affiliation have to be formal to count as problemmatic under the CofI policy? If it does, there's a huge hole right there in the CofI policy. There are many true believers who join no organization.

My own experience with Red Rose 13 is the he IS biasing related articles toward Yogananda/SRF organization. If a user just says 'no' to the 'affiliation' on the CofI policy, Q3 is he off the hook for CofI just by saying no? If so we have a lovely loophole right there. Stay officially unaffiliated, or deny affiliation -- and you're off to the races!

I removed clear POV from Kriyananda page and he reverts it. Then it's crawling through mollasses to get that through. I'm trying to add balance (counter to SRF POV) on Yogananda page re: bodily incorruptability and it's crawling through mollasses to get it in.

I apologize for seeing you in the same light as Red Rose 13. I suppose I failed to 'assume good faith' towards you and saw the two of you as a sort of tag-team. The imagination can be very persuasive. Jack said you reverted 'Swami Kriyananda' to 'Kriyananda' without getting consensus. That seemed dubious to me, but what do I know? Would you stand by that again, Q4 or was it a bit of a mistake looking back?

Red Rose 13 is civil. But he's one hell of a POV-pusher, IMO. He's a WP:CPUSH-er, and his MO is endless obstructionism.

Q5 Is it OK or wrong for me to be talking to you about Red Rose 13 like this in my own user page (or on yours)?

Thanks! -- Joesonyx (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Take a look at the Paramahansa Yogananda page, especially, the sections 'Youth' and 'Teachings'. This isn't an encyclopedia! There are other issues with the page 'Death' and 'Legacy'. Joesonyx (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's wrong to talk about Red Rose like that anywhere on Wikipedia. That's another personal attack. And I disagree with your assessment. I've worked fairly extensively with Red Rose in the past, and once he understood how Wikipedia actually works, he has been quite collaborative and sincere in working to negotiate article language in a way that complies with Wikipedia policies.

Q1: See WP:TALK.

Q2: Being a true believer does not in any way pose a conflict of interest. Only affiliation. This is not a hole, it's an intentional design. One's beliefs, however adamant, do not pose a conflict of interest.

Q3: I will not take any position that assumes that another Wikipedia editor is being untruthful about their affiliations. This includes you. I didn't write the policies in question, I just try to interpret them as applied to actual editing situations.

Q4: Kriyananda does not meet the exception in WP:COMMONNAME. You have tried but have not been successful in convincing others of your position. No, I do not believe it was a mistake, and Kriyananda's article is not the only one from which I've removed honorifics and titles which are not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I generally do good faith Google searches to make sure that the honorific or title is not always included when referring to the subject, and I've not received any complaints on other articles from which I've applied our policies in this matter.

Really, editing Wikipedia is not easy. It requires the assumption of good faith, the willingness to consider that your own view may be equally biased in the opposite direction from another editor you consider your "opponent", and sincere collaboration in which you are willing to give as well as take. Yworo (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YWORO, thanks for your reply. I didn't see any clarification for my Q1 on the page you directed me to.

BTW, I don't have a hell of a lot of regard for Kriyananda OR Yogananda OR the SRF. My efforts are to bring the articles to encyclopedic neutrality.

Q4 wasn't asking you if it was a mistake to remove 'Swami' from 'Kriyananda'. I was asking you if it was a mistake not to seek consensus. I am unsure when consensus should be sought prior to an action. I would have thought a fairly controversial thing like this would indicate some consensus-seeking beforehand.Joesonyx (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page was in clear violation of policy. It's not necessary to seek consensus to correct such an egregious violation. Yworo (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The New Jim Crow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Confederacy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit done. Thanks for letting me know. Joesonyx (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]