User talk:Butlerblog/Archives/2022/February

Help on Mark Burnett

Hi, Butlerblog. It is nice to meet you. I am reaching out to you because I noticed you are an active Wikipedian and an avid contributor to WP:TV. I recently posted an edit request on the Mark Burnett Talk page which I believe was unjustly rejected by an editor with no discussion or consideration of the encyclopedia's policies. To my understanding, the exaggerated use of one source to present an otherwise unsubstantiated theory is not in line with Wikipedia protocol. The current content certainly doesn't constitute NPOV and I would appreciate a consideration of modifying the current language as per my suggestion; I welcome the opportunity to discuss. Thank you Franklyspeaking2008 (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Franklyspeaking2008: I understand your concern. However, if what you're thinking is that this provides WP:UNDUE weight, that's probably not applicable. The biggest issue is probably that the single source does not been to be repetitive (WP:REPCITE). But as far as I can see, there's not a problem with what is there. Your suggested alternative is a less wordy level of detail, but it's not really any different in terms of undue weight. I edited to remove the unnecessary repetitive cites. ButlerBlog (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I've got some additional comments, but since this is article-specific, and there is a discussion of this there, let's keep further discussion there. That also gives the other editor a chance to respond as well. (So I'm adding more there.) ButlerBlog (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought the "name" part in the infobox was required

I appreciate your edits to the Bravest Warriors and The Bravest Knight pages, because I guess I was under the impression that the "name =" was needed in the infobox. --Historyday01 (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. It may have been required at one time (although I'm not certain about that), but now it is automatic if "name=" is the same as the article title. There's a maintenance category for this that was created last fall, so it's only really be since then that we've been working through it. ButlerBlog (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Your Bad Faith Policing

Butlerblog I guess it’s clear. You lack the maturity to not have the last word. And what you’ve just stated is nonsense and indicates that you are actually just going out of your way to do surveillance on me to try to find something I’m doing wrong. There was a spelling mistake by the auto correct on my device that resulted in person being named Spiderland by mistake when I actually wrote something that was totally factual save for that mistake. The person who changed it followed Wikipedia‘s policy on assuming good faith (which you’re not doing) and simply fixed the mistake. Then weeks later you go snooping on me and try to come up with something to give me a hard time about. How immature. As for putting in the article that the that someone could contact the person if they look their email on the State bar website, that is in no way a violation. That same link was put in the external references page by someone else whom you have not attacked. It was only moved to another section of the article by me. Again, there are many arrogant Wikipedia editors. What will be done now? A revert of this post from the talk page? Bagofscrews (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bagofscrews: - If you're responding to the warning notice I placed on your talk page, then this really belongs as a response there, not here. That's how talk pages work. If there was a legitimate autocorrect issue with your edit, then why did you not change it? That simply does not hold up to scrutiny since you made several consecutive edits of the same text. As for posting personal information of on a WP:BLP, it doesn't matter where it came from - don't do it. Your edits warranted the notice given, and the notice is to make sure you understand that your pattern of editing is disruptive to Wikipedia's stated goals. Be careful of how you word things because accusing someone of "snooping" and calling them "immature" could be construed as a personal attack. ButlerBlog (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Look buddy the fact that it was misspelled on more than one occasion is actually very much evidence that it was the auto correct program that failed and I failed to notice.

And as for posting contact information, go back and review again what happened. When I left the page, a note was put on the page that said that if you look the person up on the New York State bar website that you can get their contact information. Before that note was the link to the New York State bar website in a form pre-populated to already fill out the persons name when you click, in the external links folder. Why aren’t you going and putting things on the persons talk page who did that years ago?

Like I mentioned, if we want to get into prosecuting each other for violating this policy and that policy in the other I believe that you were not assuming good faith. But I’m not in the business of spending my entire career in life reading Wikipedia policy so I can pull out of my hat every time someone tries to say something in order to create environment where they can’t say anything without a citation for violations. There’s a lot of arrogant editors on Wikipedia and there’s also ones that try to get other people to come to the rescue when someone says something on their talk page they don’t like. Bagofscrews (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bagofscrews: To be abundantly clear, the contact info issue was not the edit in which you suggested looking them up on the state bar site. It was the edit before that in which you posted actual personal information. The edit with the big line through it here is what we're talking about. The reason the edit itself is no longer available is because it was suppressed. Whether that personal information was legitimate or not is not the issue. The issue is that you cannot do that - period. Yes, you changed that in the article to something else in the next edit, but the issue is that Wikipedia saves everything. Something like that cannot be even in the edit history, since those are readily available just as the article is. So don't try to dance around it and just don't do it again. ButlerBlog (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)