User talk:The Man of Heart

April 2015

Your recent editing history at Don Lane (Santa Cruz) 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Keri (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, The Man of Heart. You have new messages at Ukexpat's talk page.
Message added 15:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ukexpat (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, The Man of Heart. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Don Lane (Santa Cruz), you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Keri (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, The Man of Heart. You have new messages at Ukexpat's talk page.
Message added 19:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ukexpat (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do I have to say it?

I do not have any connection with the subject Don Lane (Santa Cruz). I do not have a conflict of interest. You have summarily judged and executed me without a trial, without asking my input.

It seems that you are guilty of the #1 rule to newbies---Don't Bite The Newbies!

Don Lane article

You posted a poorly composed request for help about Don Lane (Santa Cruz) at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and I closed it. You then asked for advice on what to do. I will repeat the same advice that you have been given by other respected editors, such as Keri and Johnuniq, and that is, stop edit-warring. You could have been blocked for edit-warring, but User:MusikAnimal chose instead only to page-protect the article. At this point you should have discussed changes to the article on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to discussions with Mr. Lane and with Mr. Lane's representative. These references make other editors think that you are acting on behalf of Mr. Lane. If not, the way that you state your information is unfortunate, because you appear to be trying to claim a semi-official capacity that is not appropriate for Wikipedia. In any case, your reports of discussions with Mr. Lane or his representative are not reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss the article at the dispute resolution noticeboard, you will have to identify the other editors and notify them. I know that you think that this is hard and you want an easy way to update Wikipedia to reflect what you know, but that is not how Wikipedia works. Before your dispute is ready for DRN, however, there will have to be more extensive discussion at Talk: Don Lane (Santa Cruz). Maybe by 28 April, when the page is unlocked, agreement can be reached. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, DRN does not handle cases that are being discussed anywhere else. Is the article also being discussed at the biographies of living persons noticeboard? If so, that is where the discussion should resume, or the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering how part of your confusion has happened. It's like that old child's game of telephone where the initial statement(s) gets passed on with the end statement not resembling the original very much. Correction: As I have stated, I am not a Representative of Don Lane, am not related to him, nor work for him, etc.The Man of Heart (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so.

I have done so at the Article Talk. It's not going anywhere. Meanwhile, the Page Protect does not include my post as Keri deleted it. Other editors have noted that it appears that the article was self-serving and was continually changed by the person of the article. Why am I being punished when I researched and cited my appropriate post? If the page will be protected, I at least want my submission to be included.

I did not start the "edit war". It was the self-serving, conflict of interest. They continually reverted my submission without any discussion or contact and then accused me of personal attack---which again is not true.

Since I have done what I can--what else can I do if the Article Talk does not advance and my request for help is denied regardless of the Poorly Worded request?The Man of Heart (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see from your various comments, Don, that you don't understand the reason why I instigated the actions that I did, and you don't feel I have explained my reasoning very well. I appreciate that, as an inexperienced Wikipedia editor, a good deal of the policies we try to adhere to here will be rattling over your head like so much gobbledigook and you will naturally feel you are being unfairly singled out for what you perceive as no good reason. I am going to try to explain in simple terms just what the issues are. Firstly, we try to avoid tit-for-tat edits. This is what we call "edit warring", a sort of last-wordism where editors keep adding/removing/re-adding the same controversial material. It is policed with the so called "3 Revert Rule" and breaching this rule usually results in an editor being blocked. I myself have been blocked in the past for edit warring, and that was for making just 2 reverts of the same material in a 24 hour period. Instead of disrupting a page with an edit war, we MUST take our disagreement to an article's talk page and attempt to resolve the issue there, not on the article page itself.

Secondly, we suggest that where an editor has a close connection with a subject they should exercise great caution with their edits to pages about that subject. This is because they may have an unconscious bias which prevents them from seeing the subject outside of a very narrow frame of reference. I don't know you or Don Lane from Adam, and have zero interest in the politics of city hall in Santa Cruz. This makes me far more likely, in this instance, to see the dispute as a neutral observer; I have no dog in this fight. You, on the other hand, are clearly an outspoken critic of Lane, and a simple Google search returns many hits for your critical comments about him at multiple venues. Every single edit you have made to Wikipedia has been to draw attention to the Valentine's Cards issue. If this is your only interest here, then Wikipedia is probably not the place for you. The policies we adhere to will only cause you more frustration. Perhaps you have other interests or hobbies or areas of special expertise which you should explore on Wikipedia, and channel your focus improving Wikipedia articles in those areas? A change is as good as a rest :)

Finally, I'm not entirely convinced that the card issue is relevant to the article. But I deliberately have not looked into it very deeply because my main concern has been the application of the keystone policies I've talked about above. I remain neutral on the content at this time, but cannot stand by as 2 very important policies are walked over. You can rest assured, however, that my actions have drawn the attention of many other editors to the issue. Keri (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can sense that everyone is getting weary of dealing with the newbie. I do appreciate the detailed and simple explanation by Keri, though I still protest.The Man of Heart (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don, I'm going to slightly adjust the layout (but not your comments) on the talk page at Talk:Don Lane (Santa Cruz) to make it easier to follow the discussion. Then I will kick off the discussion to see if we can reach consensus about how the disputed content is dealt with. Keri (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I do appreciate the help and furthering the discussion.The Man of Heart (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Logged Out

If you, The Man of Heart, actually did file the DRN request, then you filed it without logging in. Editing while logged out is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia, because it makes it difficult to determine who is actually editing what. In some circumstances editing without logging in can be considered a form of sockpuppetry. If you are actually having difficulty in ensuring that your edits are all made while you are logged in, then I would suggest, before getting into dispute resolution or edit-warring, you ask other more experienced editors for advice in how to stay logged in. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to make allegations of biting the newbie, but I see a lot of experienced editors going out of their way to try to help you, and you don't appear to be interested in taking our advice, at least not unless it advances your cause. Try listening, rather than complaining about being criticized. Otherwise you may get a block, and then editing while logged out is always considered sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am hearing you and the other editors, but...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_bite_the_newbies

How to bite a newbie

   Assume bad faith
   Use very strong words
   Confuse them with Wikipedia jargon
   Tag their articles for deletion[1]
   Threaten to put them on trial at ArbCom

It seems that it is/was assumed that I am operating from bad faith. Again, I'm new and I forget to sign off with the four tildas. It is not meant to be dealing in sock puppetry.

Also, Of course I'm looking to advance my cause with advice that will do so. This is because I still feel warranted in that I am being singled out and not the self-interested party who made an erroneous note directed at me within the article. It seems according to WikiP's guidelines, that alone warrants deleting the article entirely.

I can sense that everyone is getting weary of dealing with the newbie. I do appreciate the detailed and simple explanation by Keri, though I still protest. So, it seems I have no recourse unless some compassionate editor will give me some tips to navigate this maze when they have time.The Man of Heart (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editor assistance

Hi, I see that you tried to ask for help at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests‎, but all you actually did was adding two empty lines there.

What kind of help do you need ? “WarKosign ” 18:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:: Thanks for the friendly post.  I appreciate your help and time. Half of my notices from WikiP 
   are ending up in my spam box (???) and yours was one of them.  Again, dealing with
   newbie here so sorry about the blank(?) submission.  I think sometimes my log in cycles
   out and/or I forget to sign with four tildas.

   Help:  I'm slowly getting the gist of what all started this.  Apparently, I was flagged
   and my comment(s) deleted on this article because I violated the 3RR.  Also, there is
   concern about COI and SPA.  This is all documented above along with erroneous suspicions
   of my motive, involvement, being a sock puppet, conspiring, etc.  No wonder I feel like
   Snowden.  My need for aid right now is to have my contribution re-instated before the
   deletion and locked in.  It was in response to the preceding two sentences and being used 
   to clarify why Mr Lane felt he was being hounded by the press, and why the press might 
   have good reason to.  It has been documented correctly with additional info provided by 
   Keri as the validity of the addition.  Besides being given the advice of having 
   "extensive" talk here before a more advanced investigation will occur, I have no clue how 
   to proceed.  The Article Talk here is stagnant.  The Article will be considered for 
   "Permanent" lock tomorrow with my apparently having no recourse and a dead-end.

   Any advice would be appreciated.  ThanksThe Man of Heart (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not part of the editor assistance team, so I can only offer very general advice.

You can see notices near your username at the top of wikipedia page, there is no need to go only by the email.

I do not know which "this" article you are talking about. You should not be violating 3RR, not even 1RR - if someone un-reverts your revert, use the talk page to discuss before you continue editing and undoing other people's work.

Nobody is supposed to remove your comments from the talk pages unless they are grossly offensive. Perhaps you accidently left comments on an article page ?

Try to discuss calmly on the article talk page what you would like changed and why, and see why other people object. Assume good faith - it is likely that they deleted your contribution because they believed it was not beneficial to the article and not out of malice. If you still think they are wrong, try describing the situation at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests‎ by creating a new section there and filling it with details - what article you are talking about, what happened in your opinion, etc. It's important to state only facts (X wrote this and that) and not accusation (X hates me and wants to write slander about the subject) because doing otherwise violates policies and is likely to result in block. Be prepared to accept the fact that they may in fact be correct.“WarKosign ” 07:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]