User talk:DefThree

Welcome![edit]

Hello, DefThree, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022[edit]

First, don't edit other users' userpages. Second, what other accounts have you used at Wikipedia? You are not a new editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I started by fixing a misspelling and a red link, and then kept going. I can see the objection to making such a large edit to someone else's userpage, but if editing someone else's userpage isn't allowed at all, why do we even have the ability to do that? DefThree (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have the ability to edit all sorts of pages; that doesn't mean we are permitted to do so. Should we protect userpages? What level of protection? Anyway, just don't do it again, even if it's a minor edit like correcting a misspelling. I don't know why you care, but if it bothers you that much, bring it to the user's attention their Talk page. You didn't answer my question, btw.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are lot's of stuff you can do on WP-pages but shouldn't. Part of the nature of an open wiki. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be that hard to disable editing of userpages for anyone except the user or an admin? DefThree (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answer my question.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:ONUnicorn/thoughts on deletion[edit]

Thank you for fixing some typos and grammatical errors. I have no objection to you making that kind of edit in my userspace, although I see in the comment above that you have been warned that some people do object to that sort of thing.

If you have any thoughts on the content of that page, feel free to comment on User talk:ONUnicorn/thoughts on deletion. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I was correct in what I told this user? I understand his concerns about the article, but an article on a clearly notable person would not be deleted just because the subject requested that, would it? DefThree (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. I skimmed the discussion but haven't read the article. It depends how notable the person is. Like, if Elon Musk asked to have his article deleted, the answer would be unequivocally no. But I don't think we're talking about an Elon Musk here. See WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE - in borderline cases, if the person requests it, their request MAY be honored. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 04:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that John Ortberg is too notable for that. I'm not even sure whether the situation in question is likely to be removed from the article. DefThree (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now that I've read the article, it'll be an uphill battle to get that deleted under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE.

I do think the recentish drama about his son is maybe given excessive weight in the article. It needs to be included for sure, but the way the article currently reads, it almost gives the appearance of someone who is only known for one event, which is not true - he was notable for his contributions to evangelical thought at least 10 years before that event.

I think this is another example of 2 well known and established biases in Wikipedia - recentism and a tenancy to give undue weight to controversies.

I think the ideal solution is almost WP:TNT - blow it up and start over. Rewrite the article as if it was before 2018, then add more recent sources and material about what lead to his departure from the church. Make sure that the article clearly establishes why the reader should care about him in the absence of the controversy, then write about the controversy, making sure coverage of it is proportional to the totality of information available about him.

That would be hard to do well. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 05:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back Belteshazzar![edit]

Nice to see you again, how many socks is it this time? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Belteshazzar Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe instead of asking SamuelTheGhost, I should have asked you about E. F. Fincham. They seem to be cited a fair amount, but I can't seem to find enough information for a biographical article. DefThree (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Belteshazzar per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belteshazzar. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't good to mass-revert someone's edits just because. You restored typos, awkward phrasing, and perhaps even BLP violations. DefThree (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]