This is an archive of past discussions about User:Shibbolethink. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I appreciate your efforts to improve the article. One serious question, however: it is utter nonsense to claim that Steiner believed people reincarnate every seven years. Think about it; this makes no sense. The claim appears in one NYTimes article, but nowhere else and it's unclear from where this journalist picked this up. Please drop this shibboleth! HGilbert (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I know it's preposterous. Doesn't mean Steiner didn't believe it. I provided 4+ articles that cite the rooting of "looping" in reincarnation and reincarnation as the basis for many decisions in Waldorf education. I have no intention of removing these edits, and I'm stricken by the fact that you want to censor well sourced fact because it doesn't comply with your view of the discipline. Waldorf educaiton exists outside of your conception of reality, apparently. You seem to misunderstand my intention in fixing up the article. I want to make it more true to the reality of what everyone thinks of Waldorf education, not just what scholars and waldorf teachers think of waldorf education. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Waldorf School newsletter.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)03:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Here are quotes, since you seem to be misreading these sources.
"It was also the method that contributed to Mr. Steiner's view of child development, which forms the basis of Waldorf education. He believed that people experience a type of reincarnation every seven years, beginning with the physical birth and ending at age 21, when the spirit of a human being is fully developed and continually reincarnated on earth. Certain subjects are taught at times that he thought best coincided with these changes."[1]
"He also points out that the ultimate goal of Anthroposophy is to lead children through the stages of reincarnation, which blurs the line between education and religion to an even greater extent. Nancy Frost*, a former Waldorf instructor, concurs: “I heard in a faculty meeting that there were many important souls waiting to reincarnate in this century and that they would only be able to do so if there were enough Waldorf schools,” she says. “By the end of the year I taught there I was completely convinced that Waldorf constituted a cultlike religious movement which concealed its true nature from prospective parents.”[2]
"That is because of the particular views of Rudolf Steiner, the intellectual father of Steiner schools. The Austrian-born occultist, who died in 1925, left a vast body of work covering everything from biodynamic farming to alternative medicine. It is known, collectively, as "anthroposophy". The SWSF's guidelines from 2011 said that schools using the Steiner name were obliged to prove "an anthroposophical impulse lies at the heart of planning for the school". Since 2013, this has been made vaguer: they now need a commitment to "the fundamental principles of Waldorf education". Those ideas are based in a belief in reincarnation. Pupils may not have been sold this creed, but Steiner was very strict that teachers were not supposed to pass them on to children - just to act on them."[3]
"At other times, spirit serves as a kind of internal clock that orders the way subjects are taught. As the the New York Times explained in 2000, "Steiner believed that people experience a type of reincarnation every seven years, beginning with the physical birth and ending at age 21, when the spirit of a human being is fully developed and continually reincarnated on earth." As a direct consequence, at traditional Waldorf schools, "certain subjects are taught at times that he thought best coincided with these changes." Students also remain with the same instructor for periods of about seven years, a technique known as "looping." A Steiner biographer notes that "it's not unusual for many parents sending their children to Steiner schools to be unaware of his occult philosophy." Some of the school's more unusual practices turn potential families away -- for instance, the fact that children aren't taught to read until second or third grade. Day to day, though, the esoteric influence at Waldorf schools is practically invisible."[4]
That should be sufficient. See above as well, if you produce sources refuting the seven years claim, we can clarify the seven years claim by saying that prominent staff on these news sources have reported this fact, while scholars dispute it.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)03:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The topic of Waldorf education is covered by discretionary sanctions
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Waldorf education, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
You might actually like the band too, even if you are not into psychedelia. Worth a try, I recommend them, and thanks for the kind message. Peace. TheGracefulSlick talk 13:43, 21 March, 2015 (UTC)
RE: A page you started (2015 LA Galaxy II season) has been reviewed!
I hope you've noticed the advice from User:Bbb23 in the 3RR closure: "..you're just as guilty as the other editors." An excess of zeal on either side of a dispute can register with admins as a failure to edit neutrally. Though you are encouraged to improve articles, especially with scholarly sources. Some patience may be needed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Patience is the hardest part! I'm trying to create compromises on the talk page itself, but it's been pretty difficult to keep my cool. The first dispute is probably the hardest, huh? --Shibbolethink(♔♕)16:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello once again. Thank you for allowing me the time to make edits. I've added a few links that show the company's contributions to the community and involvement with Charlotte leadership. Please review and let me know if I have satisfied the notability requirement. I will continue to add more information as I find it. --Xyzerb (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Greetings again. Thank you for warning me about the impending page deletion. I made additional updates, came back to make additional edits, and found that User:DCC deleted the page. Corporations seem to be a sensitive topic, so I'll try adding a page on another subject. Thanks again for your help. --Xyzerb (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Check your claims
Please check your claims. First you repeatedly cited material to sources which did not remotely support your claims. Now you have asserted that a list of authors are invalid because anthroposophical, without bothering to check whether this is true (it is not). Accuracy is important for an encyclopedia. HGilbert (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't make it personal. This is aggressive in the same way you accused me of being aggressive. You've already attempted to get me banned because you think I'm a sockpuppet based on INCREDIBLY circumstantial evidence, why can't we compromise? I have proposed a metered way to have the information included. It comes from WP:RS. Wiki is not about winning.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)22:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
You already said you're okay with including the Reincarnation info. I'm willing to compromise and not include the number 7 anywhere. SO we agree. RIGHT???? What's the issue???--Shibbolethink(♔♕)22:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
This was not meant to be a personal attack, and I apologize if it came off that way. But why did you claim that these totally mainstream academic authors were anthroposophical? Where in heaven's name did that come from? HGilbert (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The Whedon article, for example, does talk about Waldorf education in-universe. It references the magical thinking elements of Anthroposophy as if they are fact. Does that not make it a Anthroposophist source? I don't think they shouldn't be used, I just think the POV or writing of the article should reflect that it's an in-universe belief, not fact. "Waldorf educators believe..." "Critics counter that...." etc. all with sources, of course. It should be clear to anyone reading the article what the origin of Waldorf is, and that it comes from (re)incarnation theories of Steiner. I don't mean the cycles thing, I mean that, as you say, Steiner believed in 1000 year cycles, and that the soul was incarnated gradually over time. That was literally nowhere in the lead before I started editing.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)22:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Positive collaboration
You edits to AM seem generally sound and reasonably neutral. I hope we can work together in a positive spirit, moving forward. HGilbert (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips on citations. How does one go about trying to remedy the neutrality dispute at Americans United?[1]
It seems the dispute has been going on for sometime and we've recently made some improvements to the article by removing much of the contesting content. With the exception of a few missing citations it looks pretty good. Is there particular steps to clearing the dispute so we can improve the article?
On my addition of the opinion article from River City News, please consider in contrast to your note that Wikipedia is not a depository for quotes that Wikipedia user's guide states "Further examples of primary sources include... OPINION PIECES."[2] To me, opinion pieces are essentially a quote so if you would like me to remove the quotation marks I can do that but none the less an opinion piece that provides an alternative point of view from a verifiably reliable source should be adequate.66.190.249.59 (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Not exactly. If you removed the quotation marks, that would be plagiarism. If you just left the quote up, it would violate Wikipedia:Quotations#Recommended_use_of_quotations. The right thing to do is bring the content of the quote into the paragraph. Don't just directly quote the individual, paraphrase their viewpoint as pertinent, work it into the other content, etc. Only quote parts that are absolutely necessary and can't be paraphrased effectively.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)06:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
And as Shibbolethink has noted now in the last edit summary, it's about Ark Encounter, not the AU, so certainly doesn't belong in the article. Sources need to discuss the subject of the article. Dougweller (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I debated pretty hard about deleting the article for A. Lorne Weil via a speedy deletion, but ultimately there was just enough of an assertion of notability to where I think that this would be best off as an AfD nomination. The guy doesn't seem to be independently notable outside of the company and a redirect just doesn't make sense here since he's not really mentioned in the main company article enough to warrant a redirect. I've taken it to AfD, if you're interested in giving your opinion there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)12:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikihounding
Just so you are aware, I am planning to pursue disciplinary action against you for Wikihounding. I have ample evidence to illustrate that you and one other wiki editor are hounding me in violation of wikipedia policies. See WP:Hound What's more, you have repeatedly violated the three revert rule WP:3RR and engaged in edit warring. That said, you can stop it now or I will be posting on the warring notice board you or the other editor's next attempt at conducting yourselves in this manner. It does not improve Wikipedia, in fact, you are doing more harm than good by disrupting the neutrality of the articles by allowing your personal biases to interfere with your editing.66.190.249.59 (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what article is this in reference to, is it Americans United for Separation of Church and State? How was I in violation of the 3 revert rule, which requires 3 reverts in a 24 hour period? Also, you didn't follow the bold-revert-discuss-bold-revert cycle...This is the most ridiculous thing You were editing against consensus, including irrelevant material in a number of articles. Actually, this is awesome. Please, take it to ArbCom. I'd watch it with popcorn in hand.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)18:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Focusing on Luke Weil in Born Rich
Greetings, I have noticed that you have been oddly persistent in trying to add some information about Luke Weil to the Born Rich article. Each time you've been stating something which was not in the cite in fact making it sound much worse. Is there something personal between you and Luke Weil that is causing this? I'd ask you to please not bring any personal matters to Wikipedia. I may be newer around here but it's quite clear what you're doing is out of line and seems very much like you're targeting a specific individual for libel for some reason. Even I know that's not allowed around here. JS18WlKlPEDlA (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Born Rich (film). 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.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. JS18WlKlPEDlA (talk) 05:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, @JS18WlKlPEDlA: you seem to have me confused with someone else. I only recently even heard that such a person as Luke Weil exists. It was all after reading this article in New York magazine, that I became interested in making sure that these so-called "Reputation management" companies would be adhering to Wikipedia's core principles and not using Wiki for bullshit. So then I started reading the Luke Weil articles, and realized they didn't meet notability. Come to think of it, the editor over there also claimed I had a COI, I wonder if you two have any relation? Anyway, this edit warring warning is completely misplaced, because not only am I following the Bold Revert Discuss cycle and discussing it in the talk page, but I'm also not doing 3 reverts in 24 hours. As far as I can count, it's only been 2 in the past 36! So I challenge you, are you sure about this? I'd love to take this to the Administrator's Noticeboard, that would be /very/ interesting.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)12:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
This explains a lot actually, by your own admission your intentionally libeling Weil because of your rep management theories. Obviously originally my edits had nothing to do with this considering you added them after I incorrectly formatted some red links to other cast members (I'm guessing you think I'm doing rep management for them). It was only after you starting making the changes that seemed to be sourcing a lot of information about controversy and then paying extra special attention to Weil that I looked in to that part of it. I then noticed that you were stating information that was not even mentioned in your cite and making it sound worse and more dramatic than either cite you referenced (at least what was publicly visible). So your own actions and special attention to Weil is what got me involved in this particular disagreement. How is what you're doing a NPOV? You're clearly adding your own opinion to this without any cite and now you've also explained why (because you're on a mission to fight rep management companies). Pretty sure this violates multiple Wikipedia policies. Because I'm new, I don't hold as much credibility and I'll be lucky if an admin throughly looks in to what you've done and why but I think I'm right here based on everything I've read with wikipedia best practices. JS18WlKlPEDlA (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
RE: Warning notice - You put the same notice on my talk page and I also hadn't done 3 reverts in 24 hours but as it's pointed out in the notice itself, 3 reverts are not required to be 'edit warring' with someone, which you're clearly doing. You've only just recently decided to actually begin talking about why you're doing it (postfacto). JS18WlKlPEDlA (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
JS, this wasn't "ongoing user talk discussion about controversial edits"--it's you threatening another editor. When I get a moment I will look closer at what you're doing--be careful what you wish for. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@Drmies - I realize I don't have the experience or the contributions that these two have but not once has anyone addressed any of the points I've made which fall in line with Wikipedia policy and instead are focused on my supposed attacking of other editors. My frustration lies in the fact that the focus is on me rather than any of the points I've made in edit notes or on talk pages. Thanks for now actually taking a look in to that instead of focusing on me "attacking editors" by initiating a user talk page discussion, if that's what you're now doing. JS18WlKlPEDlA (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
To add to this. I'm perfectly fine to leave this alone and move on to other articles with my free time if my points are not correct, all I've ever wanted is fair attention to the facts I've presented (seems in my brief experience newer editors are not given that courtesy before vigorously defending editors with more contributions). I don't see how at this point with what Shibbolethink has said he could possibly have a NPOV or not an obvious COI in this matter since by way of his own statement first saying that Weil is not notable then paying special attention to noting him and fighting that he must be referenced in Born Rich (along with his own personal view on it) while at the same time claiming he's doing what he is doing because of this article which as far as I can tell has nothing to do with Weil. So the reasoning is all over the board and contradictory. I think there's clearly a COI, is he notable or not, is he doing this to smear Weil based on the NYtimes article? Which way is up? JS18WlKlPEDlA (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It was not the focus that was on you, but the onus was. You chose not to discuss on the article talk page; you chose to edit war and to leave rather threatening messages for the two users who disagreed with you. These two editors have left comments on the talk page and are in agreement that your proposed edits are not an improvement to the article, and so, at least for now, they have consensus on their side. In short, this is a matter for the talk page, where (remember) you get to convince them. Telling them their edits are not neutral and that they're hounding you is not very likely to make them change their minds. And your last sentence is difficult to parse, but if you're suggesting that Shibbolethink is making their edits to "smear" this one person, you're going to have to come with much better evidence, and you really should do so in a more public forum, such as WP:ANI--but I do not suggest you do that right now, since in all likelihood this will bounce back on you. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Further investigation shows that Shibbolethink has had the entire Weil family in his cross hairs for weeks now as shown Here "speedy delete request of Lorne Weil" which was a very aged article with no contest and here "speedy delete of Luke Weil" just to name a few 'contributions' focused on the Weil's. Research also shows that he appears to live in NYC which is the same place as the Weil family. He also has a history of wiki hounding / edit warring when he doesn't get his way. I think there's some strong evidence that his edits are not random and that he's given special attention to both removing anything positive about the Weil's and adding negative information where the opportunity presents itself as well as been persistent in quickly reverting anything Weil related that does not suit his wants / options on the Weil's, reflecting them in not a neutral or positive light but a negative light (as pointed out by the evidence I've linked). There's more Weil focused that are +negative and -neutral or positive from the deleted entries. Quite an obvious agenda and clear conflict of interest in this matter in my opinion. One guy is a known philanthropist for crying out loud. This is sort of disgusting to me. JS18WlKlPEDlA (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, just, for the record, here's the sequence of events:
I read So You've Been Publicly Shamed, this amazing book that just came out by Author and humorous (but critically thinking) journalist Jon Ronson. He does a small section on an industry known as "Black Ops Reputation Management," one in which companies create dozens and dozens of websites that all refer to each other in linking, but also feature articles that are favorable to their clients. They do this to obscure unfavorable websites on Google search results. They also then edited the Wikipedia pages (or, in Luke Weil's case, created them with favorable content) of their clients, so as to obscure unfavorable coverage. This is all covered in this New York Magazine article, see these quotes from that article:
"But when sleuthing through the metadata, I noticed other names thrown in incongruously: Joe Ricketts, Helen Lee Schifter, Irena Briganti, Antonio Weiss, and Luke Weil. I also noticed the same Wikipedia editor, Belkin555, had tidied the entries of several of them. A few were powerful people with no apparent scandals to cover up: Joe Ricketts was the founder of TD Ameritrade, and Antonio Weiss runs investment banking for Lazard. Others, judging by the unforgiving kliegs of a Google search, had left much messier trails on the web."
"In 2006, according to the Observer, Weil, who now works as a VP of his dad’s company and once sued the makers of the Born Rich documentary to force the removal of his own too-candid interview footage, assaulted a music producer with a broken liquor bottle and battered his then-girlfriend, Patrice Jordan, and was sentenced to a year in jail."
So then I go check out Luke Weil's wikipedia article to see if it adheres to standards. SURPRISE! It doesn't, in my opinion, and that of the deleting admin. It was almost entirely copied from Luke Weil's personal website. So I put up a CSD, alleging copyright infringement, and an admin rightly responded and deleted the page, then blocked the editor who created it for numerous such violations.
I then looked at Weil's father (A. Lorne Weil)'s article, and put up a similar CSD, because this article was likely not notable. An admin instead switched it to an AFD, since Lorne was the CEO of a company, and had some shady trades happen which might make his article notable. So then we discussed it at the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A._Lorne_Weil, and consensus was delete, from several different editors.
I then was attracted to the Born Rich (film) article, because there had been some improper inclusion of Weil's criminal past there, which, though sourced with WP:RSes, didn't belong in an article about a documentary about him. That would violate WP:UNDUE. So I removed it, but I also noticed that there was a small edit war going on about Weil's lawsuit to stop the documentary from being released. This is definitely in a WP:RS, and is pertinent to the film, so it deserves mention. And so here we are.
None of this was against any wikipedia policies, it shows no COI on my part, and everything I did was arguably NPOV. So I ask you, User:JS18WlKlPEDlA, where are the facts to back up your assertions? If you have any about my apparent "COI" or "POV," then go ahead, list them here. If not, it should be taken up at Talk:Born_Rich_(film), where it belongs.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)19:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
"I then was attracted to the Born Rich (film) article, because there had been some improper inclusion of Weil's criminal past there, which, though sourced with WP:RSes, didn't belong in an article about a documentary about him. That would violate WP:UNDUE. So I removed it" - You removed it or another editor / admin did?
"I also noticed that there was a small edit war going on about Weil's lawsuit to stop the documentary from being released. This is definitely in a WP:RS, and is pertinent to the film, so it deserves mention. And so here we are." - You mean and edit war of YOUR edits, not a random edit war that you intervened in. I see quite a history of edit warring yourself while simultaneously posting warnings to other users for doing the same exact thing you're doing on several articles. Always alleging you're the only one within policy.
By your own above statement you've taken a special interest in the Weil's because you feel that Belkin555 was a sock puppet (or perhaps you're saying we're the same person), as well as the original creators of the content itself. Those are some pretty strong allegations if so, completely based on your conspiracy theories and those of a book written by a conspiracy theorist. How would this not be a conflict of interest? Especially when you reference all of the negative information you can find on the Weil's as far as I can tell, citing this as the only noteworthy media coverage on them (completely not true).
I have no relation to Belkin555, I do not work for a PR firm and it's your own special attention that's given me interest in this in the first place. I get a strong feeling that you're not just combating an alleged rep management effort but in fact working to add as much negative information as you can find based on your own statements above and call any other contributors sockpuppets and PR firms.
Is it really just a coincidence that you live in the same city as the Weil's coupled with your oddly persistent following up on anything related to them in particular? As an objective third party I get a sense of a strong push to add as much negative information as you can while using your experience on wikipedia and circles to reinforce your own selective views of these individuals (as shown on Born Rich's page where your statement is not even in the cite you used).
Your writing, past writing and reverted writing when it comes to anything Weil indicates a clear bias against the Weil's and as such I don't think you're the best person to be making any contributions to anything Weil related. JS18WlKlPEDlA (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Point by point:
I can't remember, now that I look through the Diffs, I can't find it. I might be confusing A Lorne Weil's page for Born Rich. Anyway it doesn't matter, this point is irrelevant.
No. It was not my edits. The info concerning the lawsuit was initially added by User:Bigesian(a legit sockpuppet of someone else? Not sure who, but not me. That account has existed for far longer than mine.) See this diff. If you're going to claim I initiate edit wars, you're going to have to back that up with evidence and specific facts to that effect.
I don't think there's enough evidence to say you're a sock puppet of anyone, and I didn't claim that. I am suspicious, though, because of the similarity of your grammar and that of User:Evershawn.
Where's the evidence? I'm sorry, but impassioned speeches with very baseless and widely impacting claims don't fly very well here on Wikipedia. Also I have no interest in the Weils whatsoever. I could care less, I'm interested in preventing companies from using Wikipedia, one of my favorite things on the internet, for nefarious purposes. That was happening in those articles, and I said as much.
Sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. You have to prove that I have a COI or a POV problem, you can't just say it and make it happen.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)20:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I have shown links above to prove that you have taken a special interest in the Weil family (and thanks to your statements, reinforced it) as well as have very directed and biased contributions when it comes to them. Yuu also have a history of edit warring with people that disagree with you while at the same time posting warning notices to their talk pages. Pretending they're not there and continually asking me to re-prove something is not a game I'm going to play. The last statement I made above was more for you to understand where my thinking is. I won't go in to past allegations of you being a sockpuppet for PeteK that I also found in the archives and it's becoming petty of you to keep trying to take the focus off of the very simple and direct objection I've made all along about your statement in Born Rich (film) pertaining to Luke not being in the cite you're using coupled with your history with any Weil content on WP. I think if you're able to just focus your attention on that concern, we may make some progress. JS18WlKlPEDlA (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what do User:Pete K and Luke Weil (or Born Rich (film), for that matter) have to do with each other? What do Waldorf education (the article that PeteK was banned from, and the editing of which resulted in another editor calling me a sockpuppet. He then later retracted that allegation for lack of evidence.)
Do you have any specific examples of my edit warring and then warning other users about it? Edit warring is implicitly a two-or-more-party occurrence, what really matters is who reports it and who avoids the 3RR and BRD violations. I have never been blocked, never been reprimanded for edit warring.
I'm sorry, but he is in that citation. Here's all the pertinent quotes from this NYT article:
"After hearing early reports about the film, Mr. Weil filed a lawsuit against Mr. Johnson and the filmmakers demanding that his scenes be cut. For his part, Mr. Johnson retaliated by featuring the lawsuit in the film as an example of what happens when rich people talk about money. Last fall, a New York State Supreme Court justice ruled in favor of Mr. Johnson in the case."
NYT is a WP:RS, without question.
Sorry I said that wrong: What you're saying specifically about Luke in the Born Rich entry is not what the cite is saying. You're adding uncited information to it from your own personal opinion on the matter. About the edit warring: Meaning I'm not the only person to say you've being doing it. About sockpuppeting: Let's not even bring it up since you've got no real evidence either yet you bring it up. (actually they had far more on you than you do here on anyone else). JS18WlKlPEDlA (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Who is they? Sockpuppet accusations are a long and drawn out process for which you need substantial information. When that information is gathered, a CheckUser request is submitted, and then someone with checkuser privileges checks whether that user has any of the digital signature of the other, and then that info fuels whether the sock is banned, etc. No such request was ever submitted for me re: Pete K, because no evidence existed. All of this is irrelevant. You're clearly attempting to intimidate me, and it isn't working. I will continue editing the Born Rich (film) article so that it adheres to WP standards. Re: whether or not I personally added any info regarding Luke Weil that was synthesis, you'd be wrong again. I believe you're referring to User:Arxiloxos's edit, found here. He sourced it with a page that I'm not sure about re: WP:RS. I'm tempted to remove that info until it's updated with a more reliable source. In fact I'm gonna do it right now.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)21:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Listen, User:JS18WlKlPEDlA, you thusfar have just sort of danced around several different things without providing any facts or sources or evidence. If you wanna keep doing that, whatever, sure. But please take it to the talk page. This is unequivocally a personal attack, and those also aren't allowed on Wikipedia.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)21:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Listen, yourself, I'm addressing points that YOU bring up. You brought up the sockpuppetry thing and I was making a point about your own experiences with it. You are making hypocritical arguments asking people not to retort statements you're making about others. I'm providing examples of occurrences that are to my point. As they say: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.". JS18WlKlPEDlA (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
