User talk:Polysci1977

Welcome!

Hello, Polysci1977, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! South Nashua (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Dore edits

I suspect you are this user. Even if you are not, the message I have linked also applies to you. CowHouse (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That means he's Jimmy Dore then, since the ip address of that user traces back to Pasadena where dore lives, so my sockpuppet theory is confirmed then. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have anywhere near enough evidence for that claim. Besides, Polysci1977 seems to be a different user to the one I linked, as this edit shows. This IP address is also not located in Pasadena. Even if they were located there, it does not prove Polysci1977 is Dore. Sorry, but your theory is not even slightly close to "confirmed". In fact, I'd be very confident in saying you're wrong. CowHouse (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you're right I was wrong, I didn't read that before, I think he might be involved somehow, it wouldn't be the first time something like this happened. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations like this only hurt your credibility and people's ability to take you seriously. You don't have any evidence that Dore is involved. Saying "it wouldn't be the first time" is specious and proves nothing. CowHouse (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I was cyberharassed by multiple accounts of the same person in the past and I suffer from panic attacks as a result, So pardon me if I not being rational, what I meant by "it wouldn't be the first time" is that it wouldn't be the first time a public figure used sockpuppet accounts to remove criticism of themselves. ^[1], I now believe that dore is not involved. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jimmy Dore, 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 the sandbox for that. If you have concerns about the content, use the articles talk page EvergreenFir (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Jimmy Dore shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have a person who keeps posting information about Jimmy Dore in a very defamatory way, I delete it but it comes back. Not sure how to handle this or who to contact . thanks for your help.

Polysci1977 (talk) 06:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Please help me with...[reply]

Polysci1977 (talk) 06:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you sincerely believe that the content posted on the Jimmy Dore page is inappropriate and a violation of Wikipedia's BLP policies you can raise the issue at the BLP noticeboard. Also discussing the change you want to make on the article's talk page might be able to help address your concerns. Bakilas (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are lucky that you weren't blocked for edit warring. But you are new and should be cut some slack. Just don't do it again.

Also, you need to avoid attributing maliciousness to your fellow editors. Please read and follow WP:AGF. And try to avoid editing logged out. Doug Weller talk 09:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...And one more note that the definition of "defamatory" isn't simply "I think it makes this person look bad," which seems to be how you're using it. A finding of defamation has certain legal requirements including, at least in the United States and for a public person like Dore, clear and convincing evidence that the statement was false and made with the knowledge of the author that the statement was false (see the article here on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan for more). There is no way that any of the material you removed comes even within shouting distance of that definition, especially since it was all documented and much of it in Dore's own words. If you ever find text on Wikipedia that you think really fits that definition, you can do as Bakilas says and ask for help at the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard or follow the instructions at this page. (Disclaimer:This is not legal advice, I am not your attorney and you are not my client) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia

[1]