User talk:Param3ter2

April 2021

Great info, thanks all! Param3ter2 (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Brian Gallagher, 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. Ew3234 (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I edited to remove opinion which I have noted in my most recent edit. Param3ter2 (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "i" icon as it is not appropriate here Param3ter2 (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Param3ter2, I'm not seeing the opionions you speak of. WHat part of this is an opinion? This is well cited details of the allegations. Allegations are not opinions.

Ew3234, As noted in our other thread HuffPost itself filed this story under politics at times which calls into question its objectivity.

"Gallagher announced his resignation from United Way in February, 2021, effective March 1, 2021, following reporting on allegations of retaliation in response to sexual harassment claims raised against others within United Way.[4][5] An investigation commissioned by United Way Worldwide trustees found no “actionable harassment, discrimination, or retaliation” at the organization.[6] Lisa Bowman, who one of the three women who filed an EEOC complaint, called it "not a thorough, fair, or reliable investigation."[7]

Are you refering to the Lisa Bowman sentance? IF so, why did you delete the entire paragraph? Ew3234 (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ew3234, That was the paragraph of most concern, but again the reporting itself seems to lack objectivity overall.

I also don’t see the opinions that Param3ter2 is talking about. Regarding the Lisa Bowman statement, that is not an opinionated statement in Wikipedia context. The statement may be opinionated to her, but in the context of Wikipedia, that’s simply a statement that provides a quotation of what she told the reporters, and therefore, is a factual statement that is suitable for use in a Wikipedia article. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 02:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ProClasher97, As noted above HuffPost itself, who originated the story, filed it under politics at times which calls into question its objectivity.

Param3ter2: If you still have concerns about the content covered in the article, I recommend that you open a discussion within the talk page. That way we can disucss in a central place and come to a concensus. Ew3234 (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Brian Gallagher. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. I see that you submitted another edit request to remove the details of the allegations. Those changes were reverted. Please use the talk page if you'd like to discuss further but please stop trying to remove this content without seeking consensus. Ew3234 (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Brian Gallagher. 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. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RandomCanadian, Do you plan to issue the same warning for Ew3234 as I'm not sure how I can be in an edit war with myself? They seem to be very firm in their belief that they are right as well. Param3ter2 (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Ew3234, wow reading all the helpful hints below, I thought you must have been editing for years, but I see in your edit history your account was created last year. You are a fast learner! Thanks so much for sharing all this info with me. Param3ter2 (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Param3ter2. Welcome! Just a heads up, it convention on wikipedia to add comments below someone's message. Not that there's anything wrong with adding them on top but you might get some message replies from others posting at the bottom. Ew3234 (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Param3ter2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

I am not sure what you are basing this on? I did notice that this page was being heavily edited after reporting and that the edits did not seem neutral at all. Param3ter2 (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

Ew3234, I am not sure that you seem entirely neutral here and honestly I removed your edits because I thought this may be referring to you and you were therefore basing your information on an opinion-based podcast. Param3ter2 (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Thank you, but I'm not sure how this is relevant. Param3ter2 (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Thank you, but again not relevant Param3ter2 (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Best practices for editors with close associations
Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

Thank you so much for your genuine interest in helping me. I really appreciate it. Param3ter2 (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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! Ew3234 (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block

You have been blocked from editing Brian Gallagher for a period of one week for edit warring. The place to discuss contested changes is on the article talk page, not through edit summaries in the course of edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 10:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, understood. Do you also plan to apply the same block to other editors who were failing to open a discussion on the article's talk pages and were instead discussing via edit summaries in the course of edit warring? It should be easy to check who those accounts are. Param3ter2 (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Param3ter2, no, not at this time. But feel free to update me if the edit war resumes and I'll revisit. El_C 15:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks EL_C, given ongoing activity I added an detailed description to explain where I was coming from. Here is a summary of the portions that pertain to Ew3234.

While we did eventually reach a consensus to leave the information relevant to Gallagher on that page and add more detail on the United Way Worldwide page their tone was very argumentative and in their [last comment] they noted that they used to work at a local United Way ~16 years ago. During this time Gallagher was the CEO at United Way of America so it's not unreasonable to think that Ew3234 may have a vested interest here.

To further support that, the Ew3234 account was only created last year and while they have edited other articles they have spent a disproportionate amount of time on the United Way Worldwide and Brian Gallagher pages.

Even yesterday, their [edit to the Brian Gallagher page] that got reverted was made because they [updated the language] in the EEOC Claims section header that I added to the United Way Worldwide page to make it more salacious and tried to link to it on the citations for Brian Gallagher page. Param3ter2.1 (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]