User talk:Dog Boy Dan

Welcome!

Hello, Dog Boy Dan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm Epicgenius. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Eric Garcetti because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Eric Garcetti. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Epicgenius (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how it is vandalism when I am adding back what you gave me PERMISSION to add back. I toned down the rhetoric, which was from an earlier version. In fairness, you added false information; it wasn't a water bottle, and the news source and context of his comments prove that.

FWIW, I make my living as a writer and am puzzled about your adding false information, and deleting accurate news sources.

Please write back so I know whether I have your permission to add back the mainstream news source, and delete your incorrect addition of "water bottle." Also, I would like to re-add the part about Garcetti's "Rules of Decorum," in context. You were editing an earlier version and I have no idea whether or not I can add back the news source as you invited me to do.

Discussion about improvement to the article should be confined to its talk page; it should not appear in the face of the article itself. This edit added that sort of commentary to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fred. I didn't know that, and find reading this discussion a bit difficult, with all the code embedded. But I appreciate that. Question: what do I do in order to correct the incorrect edits Epic made. I was invited to do this, but then was told that it's "vandalism" How do I know the status? Right now, there is false information on the page.

What information is false? What should the information be? And what reliable sources will support the corrections? —C.Fred (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that the Mayor held up a Bud Light bottle....the tall thin aluminum kind. Your editor falsely changed that to be a "water bottle." Not only is Bud Light bottle in the LA Times, it's on all of the local TV news stations, including this one from Channel 11. http://www.myfoxla.com/story/25791734/mayor-garcetti-drops-the-f-bomb-during-la-kings-rally-speech

Moreover, your editor took out a completely relevant comparison of Garcetti's comment to his enforcement of "Rules of Decorum" during his terms as City Council president, which resulted in the city paying out huge six-figure settlements in 1st Amendment violations by the city. Why in the world would that be edited out?

I would like to delete this whole section and start again - if I have your permission. The tone will be moderate, in full context and completely accurate. But please give a fellow writer who has followed this and related Garcetti issues, for years a fair shake at this. But if you want the legitimate mainstream news source, there it is. http://www.myfoxla.com/story/25791734/mayor-garcetti-drops-the-f-bomb-during-la-kings-rally-speech

Let me know if you would also like to see the reference in the LA Times. I have to say, I'm really dismayed that this would be edited out and something completely false put in there by you folks. Clearly, your editor took out this link without even looking at it to see if it is fair and accurate. The whole point of the mayor's comment referenced being pictured with alcohol; does that make sense?

I just retrieved further proof of it being a Bud Light bottle from the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/local/cityhall/la-me-garcetti-f-word-20140617-story.html

How much more proof does Wikipedia need to prove that it edited out an in-context truth and replaced it with a lie? Virtually every media outlet referenced this because it's relevant to the story. Only Wikipedia edited it out and replaced it with a lie. Here it is in the Times...for a reason, "Garcetti, who was wearing a Kings jersey and carrying a bottle of Bud Light" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dog Boy Dan (talk • contribs)

I went with "beer bottle" rather than "bottle of Bud Light". Both terms do appear in the LA Times article. I've also added a citation to the LA Times article to make clear where the information came from. That was missing, and unsourced information can be challenged.

As for the "Rules of Decorum" segment, that's going to take more looking to see what's going on there. —C.Fred (talk) 04:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, why would you (or your colleague) change it to "water bottle" without having checked the link I provided, and in fact, deleted that link, which proved what I was sourcing? Where is the accountability for such a blatantly false change? Moreover, the quote about hockey v. lawn bowling was made at the vent, as well. Why add the reference to Jimmy Kimmel live, even if it was repeated there later, although I didn't watch it myself. Where is the credibility and accountability?

With respect to the "Rules of Decorum," if you insist on researching it yourself, start here: This pertains to the 1st Amendment suit won by David Saltsburg, but resulted in virtually no damages. http://articles.latimes.com/2014/feb/23/local/la-me-dollar-lawsuit-20140224

This pertains to the 1st Amendment suit won by Michael Hunt, who last week won his SECOND six-figure settlement. http://www.latimes.com/local/cityhall/la-me-kkk-hood-settlement-20140613-story.html Within this article references an earlier $200,000+ settlement.

I can probably locate several other sources, all of which pertain to Garcetti's "Rules of Decorum" wackiness; which all happened on his watch as City Council president.

These are completely relevant to what the Mayor said on Monday, since it was he whose language was in question.

Completely relevant, in full context and accurate. I'm genuinely looking fwd to hearing why Wikipedia put in "water bottle" without any basis for doing so.

Once you research this, how about letting me take down the post alogether and putting up something clean, accurate, trutful and in context?

The edit summary where the change was made wasn't obvious, so I'm not sure what precipitated the change. Also, Wikipedia is a community of editors, so the decision for that change rests more on the editor(s) who made that change than the community as a whole. If there's that much concern of beer v. water bottle, it'll get hammered out on the article's talk page, and we'll eventually get to some consensus about what should be in the article.

As for the rules of decorum issue, it may be a matter of undue weight, if too much of the article is devoted to something that the city council did while he served on it--in other words, it's a matter that relates more to the council than him. —C.Fred (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what is that process, Fred? I have already documented that the editor of this piece took out WELL-DOCUMENTED FACT, and replaced it with a lie, and removed my links to back up the original text. Where is this person on responsibility for that, and does this person retain the ability to damage further posts, whether by me or by others?

Secondly, you - pardon the pun - watered down the reference to Bud Light. Google "Garcetti, Bud Light" and you will see that there are hundreds of references to this. What is the purpose of your change, since so many mainstream news outlets referred to it this way? What benefit did your change bring to the text? I'm curious, and want to learn what standard is applied to this.

Third, as to the "Rules of Decorum" issue, I have now provided links to the LA Times' coverage of these 1st Amendment cases and six-figure settlements, including one for $215,000 last week. If you have an editor who feels that he or she is WELL-VERSED on the subject, let's have them come forward to explain how my original text was inaccurate, out of context or out of proportion.

Fourth, to your point about whether the "Rules of Decorum" were those of the Council or those of Garcetti, he was CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT for THREE terms, and these cases were the direct result of his presidency and enforcement of the rules. He specifically was the person in charge. If you feel you have an expert who can claim otherwise, please have them step up with proof of the opposite. Check the dates of the lawsuits and his terms as City Council president. It feels like you folks make assumptions without having done the widely available research, e.g. water bottle v. Bud Light bottle, and removing sourced links to mainstream media outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:7FC0:4F:4444:7566:CB4C:525E (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, what is the position on our simply deleting what's there now, since I was the original contributor, and starting fresh with my most recent changes? I have yet to see a shred of evidence that what I posted was false, misleading, inappropriate or out of proportion in any way.

Thanks in advance for your replies. I would like to resolve this today. Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:7FC0:4F:4444:7566:CB4C:525E (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Boy Dan, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Dog Boy Dan! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]