User talk:JoshuaJT

Potential conflict of interest

Hello, JoshuaJT. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Robert Lawrence Kuhn, 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, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} 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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Hello JoshuaJT. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Robert Lawrence Kuhn, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:JoshuaJT. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=JoshuaJT|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Amigao (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amigao,

It would have certainly been nice to get paid! LOL. But as stated previously, I just wanted to show my support for this TV show. I never thought that in doing so it would result in so much confusion.

All the best, JoshuaJT (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hello, I'm Amigao. I noticed that you recently removed content from Robert Lawrence Kuhn without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Amigao (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

You still have not adequately responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying, you may be blocked from editing. Amigao (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Robert Lawrence Kuhn) for undeclared COI editing, edit warring.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JoshuaJT (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have taken the time to thoroughly understand the reasons behind my indefinite block for undeclared COI editing and edit warring on the Robert Lawrence Kuhn page. I acknowledge the concerns raised by the community and the need for transparency and collaboration in editing Wikipedia. I realize my actions may have seemed in conflict with Wikipedia's guidelines, and for this, I sincerely apologize. My intent was to contribute positively, and I see now how my approach could have been misinterpreted. Moving forward, I am committed to adhering strictly to Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and conflict of interest. I will ensure any edits I propose are thoroughly discussed on the article's talk page, fostering an environment for consensus. However, I am aware that discussions can sometimes stall or not reach a consensus due to various reasons. In such cases, I will seek guidance from experienced editors or administrators on the appropriate next steps, rather than waiting indefinitely for a consensus that may not materialize. This approach will allow me to contribute constructively while ensuring that any potential conflicts of interest are transparently addressed and that my editing behavior aligns with Wikipedia's standards. I appreciate the opportunity to learn from this experience and hope to be given a chance to demonstrate my commitment to being a productive and collaborative member of the Wikipedia community. JoshuaJT (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

According to zerogpt, this unblock request was generated by an AI chatbot. We aren't interested in what AI chatbots understand, only what you understand, and what you'd write about instead if unblocked. Yamla (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request for Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JoshuaJT (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand the concerns raised regarding my previous unblock request and the importance of personal engagement on Wikipedia. I apologize for any and all policies that I may have violated, specifically related to COI and edit warring. I understand that there is a critical importance around maintaining neutrality when editing and preventing COI. Moving forward, I will be actively participating in talk page discussions to build consensus while seeking guidance from other editors to ensure my contributions are beneficial to Wikipedia. Although my learning curves have been steep, having never edited on Wikipedia before, I greatly value the opportunity to continue editing and the second chance to correct my mistakes on Robert Lawrence Kuhn's page. JoshuaJT (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You haven't provided a reason as to why you should have access to the article you are blocked from, nor have you explained what exactly your COI is. You are only blocked from the article itself, you may use the talk page, and you may edit literally every other article on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request for Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

JoshuaJT (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have given this much thought and would like the chance to explain again why I feel like my edits have been misunderstood and removed without a reasonable attempt to understand them. Moreover, getting blocked from editing the page of Robert Lawrence Khun has only made matters more complicated, which I would like to explain now.

When I created my Wiki account, it was for the sole purpose of contributing to a person's page whose work had made a great impact on my life. I do not have interest in editing any other page on Wiki. The reason for this is that watching Robert Lawrence Kuhn's TV show Closer To Truth while studying philosophy during undergrad supplied me with an immense amount new ideas and perspectives to contemplate, which in turn enriched my passion for philosophy and thought. I only saw editing this page as a way to give back or help other students like myself at the time understand his life better. After all, the Wiki page that I first set out to edit was primarily about his affiliations with China and his TV show was hardly mentioned.

The policies behind Wikipedia were foreign territory to me at the time. I have only recently learned of the many rules that editors must follow in order to abide by the community standards and maintain order on the site. When I first set out to editing Robert Lawrence Kuhn's page, I was ignorant of such policies and edited freely with only the best intentions. It was made clear to me early on that pages needed to be unbiased and balanced, which I attempted to uphold to the highest degree, providing sources and material that made for a beautifully balanced article.

But then I began to get notifications that there was suspicion of there being a conflict of interest (COI). I responded to all the places where I assumed were appropriate to resolve such suspicion but alas, ignorant of the procedure, I missed the resolution opportunity on my very own talk page. This, I admit was foolish. I was not yet aware of how to properly resolve these matters (and to some degree, I'm still not--though learning).

The COI suspicion only grew from here, naturally. I was never paid to make edits and I'm not related to Robert Lawrence Kuhn in any way. I am just a fan of his show and wanted to contribute to the story of the life of the man who made that show. The only reason I still continue to try here is because I cannot shake the feeling that I've experienced injustice by editing this page. I take the edits serious and in no way mean to contribute in a way that creates a false representation of what I believe to be critical information about his life.

Going forward, I plan to not allow my ignorance of Wikipedia standards to get in the way of me contributing to the page I originally set out to contribute to. I thought I was taking it serious but alas, I did not take it serious enough. Before making any major changes, I want to emphasize my intentions on communicating clearly on the article talk page my edits and the desire to reach consensus. I want to ensure that every edit is documented thoroughly to ascertain what could be seen as COI. There are many policies in place, and I need to be aware of them before making future edits. To do so, I will utilize documentation to ensure that I'm not in violation. If mistakes are made on my end, I will humbly take accountability for my actions and if the moderators find it fitting to again block my account, I will accept these consequences. However, following an unblock, I am confident that my actions before will not be repeated.

Thank you for your consideration.

JoshuaJT JoshuaJT (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I'm sorry this languished, but I will remove the block per the discussion below. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Will defer that to someone with a faster reading speed and longer life expectancy. (elbows @331dot:) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite often passionate fans are often mistaken for COI related editors, as they make many of the same mistakes. I'm still not seeing the reason that you need access to the article; in this situation I usually like to see some edit requests accepted from the article talk page first. However, I see enough here that I would be willing to remove the block if Drmies does not object. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deepfriedokra, I think 331dot is older than me--they certainly sound more mature! Fun fact--we appear together in the same book. Well, here's the thing: the editor has not yet shown me that they can edit neutrally, with regard to our requirement for reliable secondary sources, or in agreement with the MOS and other guidelines, and that's probably because they never showed interest in them or in Wikipedia as a whole. So I would certainly want to see that they place an edit request, formatted properly and with sourcing, before I'd allow them to edit the article directly. The talk page and the edit request function thus function as a training ground. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like we're in agreement. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoshuaJT: What have you to say to the above? Daniel Case (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say thank you for the second chance. I will humbly take the opportunity to place an edit request which demonstrates a neutral edit with reliable secondary sources that is in alignment with MOS guidelines. Thank you all for taking the time here to discuss. JoshuaJT (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]