User talk:Tim191k

November 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Patrick Lancaster, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Hello. I notice that you claim to be the father of Patrick Lancaster. This means that you have a Conflict of Interest with editing his page. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Violations can lead to a block of your account.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

No where in my response do I threaten legal action. I make a factual statement by explaining what libel and slander are.

I understand that:

"Wikipedia is generally safe from libel liability because it's considered a service provider, not a publisher, and is protected by Section 230 of the Federal Communications Decency Act (CDA). Section 230 protects service providers from liability for information provided by third parties.

However, Wikipedia's policy is to immediately remove libelous material from its pages and page history. Wikipedia also encourages users to try to resolve issues through its internal mechanisms rather than litigation.

A process called "citogenesis" can occur when Wikipedia references false information from sources that are considered reliable. This can make the false information seem credible and increase the likelihood of it being reported in other media."

Tim191k (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The definition of Impression" is: "an idea, feeling, or opinion about something or someone, especially one formed without conscious thought or on the basis of little evidence."

My argument was based on sensible reasoning. It is supported by objective truth or generally accepted authority.

My statement was well-grounded in fact, logical, rational, and reasonable.

Therefore, the impression one might get is their problem. It is not a valid and in your argument here.

My statement was based on legal standards. And was not a threat, I was discussing that what was written was libelous

"A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. The policy on defamation is to delete libel as soon as it is identified."

Tim191k (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Making legal threats

Your recent edits to Talk:Patrick Lancaster could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The definition of Impression" is: "an idea, feeling, or opinion about something or someone, especially one formed without conscious thought or on the basis of little evidence."

My argument was based on sensible reasoning. It is supported by objective truth or generally accepted authority.

My statement was well-grounded in fact, logical, rational, and reasonable.

Therefore, the impression one might get is their problem. It is not a valid and in your argument here.

My statement was based on legal standards. And was not a threat, I was discussing that what was written was libelous

"A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. The policy on defamation is to delete libel as soon as it is identified."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#:~:text=Do%20not%20post%20legal%20threats,dispute%2Dresolution%20process%20within%20Wikipedia. Tim191k (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is to immediately remove libelous material from its pages and page history. Tim191k (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It is clear that Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Many studies which are actually supported and publish on Wikipedia pages.

My son is an independent journalist. As such, his job is to report on the things he witnesses that contridict the propaganda from the mainstream media and biased sites like Wikipedia. And you don't like it.

Wikipedia's own founder finds this bias abhorrent. It is of courser a violation of journalist ethics. But Wikipedia understands that legally they publish according to a liberal bias and censor contributor's such as you are attempting to do here to my well supported factual arguments. I understand that and so does Wikipedia.

As an contributor, it is also my responsibility to attempt to point out Wikipedia's bias and censorship to other Wikipedia contributors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia#:~:text=Multiple%20studies%2C%20including%20two%20from,article%20content%20and%20editor%20sanctioning. Tim191k (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

So your son is the only true independent journalist and all the other journalists are propagandist shills? Does that really sound logical to you? To me it sounds like a dad insisting that their child isn't the bully, its all the other kids who are the bullies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Really childish.... Tim191k (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something but aren't you arguing that wikipedia's liberal and mainstream bias resulted in them covering the opinion of a conservative independent journalist? And aren't you the one who wants to implement censorship? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a clear left-wing bias, well documented in peer-reviewed journals, in the mainstream western media, academia, and is even identified in actual Wikipedia articles. What I wrote is the truth.

"And aren't you the one who wants to implement censorship?"

The biography in question contains false statements that should be addressed and corrected.

That is not censorship.

It's the truth. Tim191k (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you want them removed or do you want them addressed and corrected? Those aren't the same thing and if you have a newer reliable source which either contradicts or challenges the sources we have we can effectively address and correct them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

These claims on their face are unprovable and there is no citation that even attempts to verify these charges.

Thus, they clearly meet the definition of libel and defamation which violate Wikipedia rules and policies. Whoever oversees this report should have immediately PER POLICY removed this claim.

Lancaster is an “illiterate, grifting charlatan, with a journalistic acumen and ability lower than a potted plant." Tim191k (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

If the claims on their face are unprovable then how can they be defamation? Something doesn't add up there, if you really are a law student I'm sure you can ask a professor about this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

No where in my response do I threaten legal action. I make a factual statement by explaining what libel and slander are.

I understand that:

"Wikipedia is generally safe from libel liability because it's considered a service provider, not a publisher, and is protected by Section 230 of the Federal Communications Decency Act (CDA). Section 230 protects service providers from liability for information provided by third parties.

However, Wikipedia's policy is to immediately remove libelous material from its pages and page history. Wikipedia also encourages users to try to resolve issues through its internal mechanisms rather than litigation.

A process called "citogenesis" can occur when Wikipedia references false information from sources that are considered reliable. This can make the false information seem credible and increase the likelihood of it being reported in other media."

So your response to my edit is false and frankly a microaggression.

I would request that you either edit your accusation and threat to block me due to your misinterpretation of my edit.

Tim191k (talk) 04:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

And what court has ruled that those statements are either libel or slander? In order for that to be a factual statement it would need to be supported by a court order, otherwise its just your opinion (and it would appear to be wrong, you don't appear to understand what constitutes libel or slander). My advice would be to consult with a lawyer who specializes in that field, you clearly haven't already done so and as a result you're here... Publically embarassing yourself and your child. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You must not have read my response.

"Wikipedia's policy is to immediately remove libelous material from its pages and page history."

Does Wikipedia need a court order to remove content as you contend?

"Wikipedia encourages editors to write in a fair and accurate manner, using a formal tone and avoiding opinionated writing."

My son's page doesn't follow this mission at all.

And your use of a microaggression here is a logical fallacy called an "ad hominem attack"; You are attacking me instead of addressing the actual content of my reply. You are essentially trying to discredit my viewpoint by attacking me personally instead of the logic of my position.

Your use of an ad hominem attack undermines your own argument.

My dispute with the article on my son uses the same ad hominem logical fallacy. Such as Philips calling my son an “illiterate, grifting charlatan, with a journalistic acumen and ability lower than a potted plant.” Comments such as this have no place in a professional organization and are clearly a violation of Wikipedia's Mission and its Policies.  !

Everyone is aware of the poor writing, inaccuracies, left-wing bias, and fallaciousness contained in Wikipedia. In my academic pursuits through my 4 graduates degrees, even as an undergraduate, we are forbidden from citing out Wikipedia for these reasons.

Therefore I am giving up on Wikipedia for those reasons, and because of the obtrusiveness of the editors here. Tim191k (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

We immediately remove libelous material, we do not have the ability to decide ourselves what is libelous or not... We are not a court of law. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

See, that makes no sense.

So you remove libelous material but you don't have the ability to determine what is libelous or not.

As a member of the American Bar Association (ABA), I can help you out.

"A libelous statement is a false statement that is published in writing or other physical form and damages someone's reputation. Libel is a type of defamation, which is the act of harming someone's reputation through false statements. The other type of defamation is slander, which is the act of making a false statement orally."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel#:~:text=Libel%20is%20a%20method%20of,in%20their%20business%20or%20profession.

This is clearly an example of a libelous statement libelous statement: "Lancaster is an “illiterate, grifting charlatan, with a journalistic acumen and ability lower than a potted plant.” Tim191k (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You're likely not a competent lawyer in this field and you clearly have not talked to any... Because that is plainly not an example of libel, its pretty obviously hyperbolic opinion (at least under US law, see Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.). This isn't my first rodeo, you would probably not be surprised by this but we get people turning up here claiming defamation all the time. We do occasionally get competent lawyers on here, I can recommend Carter-Ruck and the Saunders Group as worth the money if you want to actually address your concerns about possible defamation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Wow... Why are you so angry?

You should learn to write your opinions or positions in an assertive manner.

This is one of the main lessons in English 101 as you should know.

I have a masters degree in English with a concentration in Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL).

My concerns about the article in question were well written and rational. And they were met abusive rhetoric and insults. They are filled with aggressions and microaggressions. The tone of the responses I have received here are inappropriate for a public forum.

I'm embarrassed for you all. Tim191k (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is improved through the work of both regular editors and newcomers. The first edits of many now-experienced editors were test edits, or unsourced and unencyclopedic additions. It is unlikely for a new editor to be familiar with Wikipedia's markup language and its myriad policies, guidelines, and community standards. In some areas, even the most experienced are still newcomers, needing an occasional gentle reminder."Not having a clue is a normal stage in the editor lifecycle.

"We want editors to survive this process: Communicating with newcomers patiently and thoroughly is integral to ensure they stay and continue contributing in an increasingly constructive manner. Therefore, treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares valuable contributors away faster than hostility.

Being open and welcoming to newcomers is a foundational principle of Wikipedia that forms a part of its fourth pillar. Newcomers are both necessary for and valuable to the community. By helping newcomers, we can increase the range of knowledge, perspectives, and ideas on Wikipedia, thereby preserving its neutrality and integrity. While this guideline includes various best practices and suggestions about how to perform adequately in this regard, having a willingness to do it is more than a suggestion—it is a requirement."

"If you have "bitten" someone, or feel that you have been bitten, you should consider the key principles to help ensure that it doesn't happen again as follows.

1. Choose to learn from the incident.
2. Apologize if you realize you have bitten another user.
3. Consider alternatives to biting that could have achieved a better response. If you encounter a similar situation in the future, choose one of those alternatives instead of repeating history.
4. Find something of value in the experience. Extract the wisdom that may have been unintentionally veiled.
5. Be reasonable. Explain why you were offended, but learn to recognize when the message cannot be received. The recipient may be unable or unwilling to accept fault, and it may be better to move on to other things than to dwell on the bite.
6. Move on from it!:"

Tim191k (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Biting in this context would look like you being dragged to ANI and banned from editing... You received the standard template notice (uw-legal), you then took offense to that notice. I directed you to seek legal counsel for legal issues, you responded that you are yourself a lawyer. This presents us with a bit of a conundrum as you also claim to be the father of Patrick Lancaster and the father of Patrick Lancaster (one Timothy Lancaster) doesn't appear to be a lawyer. Is there something I'm missing here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

"you responded that you are yourself a lawyer."

This is a false statement. I said I was a member of the American Bar Association. I am not a lawyer.

Obviously you are neither or you would not made this false statement:

"The ABA has several membership categories: lawyer, law student, student associate and associate. Learn more on the ABA Membership page."

Come on.... Use some critical thinking and read my responses objectively. Tim191k (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The responses I have received in my initial attempt as a editor clearly violate these Wikipedia's principles.

They have been aggressive with personal insults.

I Tim191k (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Your initial attempt as a editor has been to make legal threats and claim to be a lawyer as well as the subject's father. The reaction to that has been very reasonable all things considered. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do not edit comments after they have been responded to as you did here[1], if you were not claiming to be a legal professional then what was the point of your statement? Remember you said "So you remove libelous material but you don't have the ability to determine what is libelous or not. As a member of the American Bar Association (ABA), I can help you out." so perhaps you can explain how your membership (of some minor kind) in the ABA qualifies you to help us out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back

You quote me as commenting "So you remove libelous material but you don't have the ability to determine what is libelous or not."

I had earlier falsely stated: "In order for that to be a factual statement (the definition of Libel) it would need to be supported by a court order."

I was clearly pointing out the dichotomy in your statement and that of Wikipedia that states they may "Immediately remove slanderous or libelous statements" presumably without a court order. So you were incorrect here as well. I gave a definition of Libel from Black's Law Dictionary, which is the standard law Dictionary for the United States. In other words, I clearly made a factual statement. Wikipedia follows the definition I offered as fact in making decisions about libelous statements. I was merely illustrating your error of fact.

"if you were not claiming to be a legal professional then what was the point of your statement? So perhaps you can explain how your membership (of some minor kind) in the ABA qualifies you to help us out."

I did not claim I was a legal professional. Even though I am. I stated I was a member of the American Bar Association.

However, I have earned have two masters degrees in law and sociological affairs, I am a retired Law Enforcement Officer, and I am a Student Member of the American Bar Association. I have testified in court for the prosecution as an expert witness in criminal and civil law. This qualifies me to cogently discuss most law related issues.

Really you Horse Eye's Back have been disrespectful, made false statement and innuendos. And have wholly been obtuse in your missives. I have comported myself in a professional manner. I have been truthful and respectful in these talks. And I have an extensive academic and professional law experience to back it up.

I am tired of correcting your misstatements!

If you can't conduct yourself in a respectful and astute manner on this forum, it appears you are in violation of Wikipedia's conduct policies and should be sanctioned by the organization in some fashion. Tim191k (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The second sentence above contains a an error, a misplaced noun modifier

As written: I had earlier falsely stated: "In order for that to be a factual statement (the definition of Libel) it would need to be supported by a court order."

Horse Eye's Back made that statement. The correction reads:

This is the correction to that statement.

Horse Eye's Back had earlier falsely stated: "In order for that to be a factual statement (the definition of Libel) it would need to be supported by a court order."

"I was clearly pointing out the dichotomy in your statement and that of Wikipedia that states they may "Immediately remove slanderous or libelous statements" presumably without a court order. So you were incorrect here as well. I gave a definition of Libel from Black's Law Dictionary, which is the standard law Dictionary for the United States. In other words, I clearly made a factual statement. Wikipedia follows the definition I offered as fact in making decisions about libelous statements. I was merely illustrating your error of fact." Tim191k (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The organization as such doesn't really sanction like that, you would have to ask our fellow editors to sanction me. I'm sorry that you haven't found the experience either on the article talk page or your own talk page to be rewarding, all that is really left for me to suggest is that you email info-en-q@wikipedia.org with a detailed explanation of what you believe to be defamation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)