User talk:Lazyboyfarm

License tagging for File:Locke's Ford Bridge - circa 1917.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Locke's Ford Bridge - circa 1917.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Sons of Confederate Veterans‎ seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 14:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A valid reason was given. An inflammatory term that did not add to the understanding of the subject was deleted. I am starting to question the puported neutrality of Wikipedia. Lazyboyfarm (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality demands that we call something what it is reputed to be by a consensus of reliable sources, "inflammatory" or not. Wikipedia is not a means for organizations that have attracted criticism or which adopt controversial stances to manage their public perception. You appear to have a conflict of interest in this matter. Acroterion (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One source is hardly a consensus. While making the entry more balanced is an attempt to inform the public of all sides of an issue, I don't know that I would call it managing public perception. Actually, I would call that neutrality. You and I might disagree about the description and purpose of the SCV, but both sides should be presented to allow an objective observer to form their own opinions. As the entry now stands, only a primarily negative view of the organization is given. Lazyboyfarm (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at WP:Neutral point of view, especially the section WP:FALSEBALANCE. We don't present "all sides of an issue", but we present what reputable, preferably academical sources say. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lazyboyfarm We give a predominantly negative view to many organisations, from the Oath Keepers to the Nazi Party to a long list of hate groups. You disagree with that policy? Doug Weller talk 15:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I get that. I just feel like they are getting unfairly lumped in with those groups simply because the SCV has a point of view that is at odds with what is currently politically correct. I'm pretty sure that the Oath Keepers and the Nazi Party aren't 501(c)3 charitable organizations either. I'm not asking to remove information from the posting that is factual. I would just like to add to the other side of the equation to present an even-handed picture. I'm going to have to put some more thought into it. Lazyboyfarm (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Lazyboyfarm. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Sons of Confederate Veterans, 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 {{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. —C.Fred (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]