User talk:Arbrnirish

Erin Elizabeth

Hi Arbrnirish. In regard to Erin Elizabeth, I do not know the article or her, and I do not know why this is on my watchlist. So I do not know if you are right about the issues or not. But to try and help, I want you to understand how this will go down. At the moment you are edit warring, (as is ScienceFlyer) and you seem to know enough about Wikipedia to recognise what that is. Edit warring always results in blocks. As a new editor, interested in a single topic, you will end up being blocked for a long time, the article will revert to its former state, and any of your concerns will be lost.

If your goal is to fix problems with the article you need to go down a different path. Specifically, raise individual concerns on the article's talk page, here, try to get some discussion going, and if needed and if you think they are serious enough and you have tried discussing them, raise them at the Biographies of living people noticeboard. You may get support for some of the issues you raise, you may not. But just adding back your changes whenever they are removed is not going to be a long term solution, even if you are right. - Bilby (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, I notice now I was taking the wrong route. I have fixed it so that only reliable sources are given. I notice now where I went wrong. The updated page is all good in my eyes. If it is changed now by ScienceFlyer, it would show that they want it as an "Attack page" and there is nothing I can do about that, unless Wiki steps in and changes it. All info now is fixed and accurate in my eyes and notated accordingly. Thank you again for saying something. Arbrnirish (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaken in your view that "Wiki steps in". Wiki is made of people like us. We need to step in, not Wiki.

I honestly do not know enough about Erin Elizabeth to make a case, but if you really feel that the article is a mistake - and I assume you do - then if you explain why so that people like me can understand the issues, we may be able to help. I'm not guarenteeing that, but at least it gives people room to move. If you revert ScienceFlyer (or anyone else) again the result is less productive. I'm saying this because I hate to see people who care about issues blocked, but being passionate about a specific issue is one of the more common indicators of falling afoul of Wikipedia's policies.

Anyway, Wikipedia does have a process for managing disputes. I am far from convinced that it always works, but it is the best we have. Check out the steps outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and if you have the time work through them. I suspect that the level of change you desire is not going to happen, but there's a chance you will make some of those changes. - Bilby (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Erin Elizabeth

Your recent editing history at Erin Elizabeth shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You want to enforce "Edit War" but you'll leave and "Attack Page" to stay up and not be edited? Seems SUS to me. Arbrnirish (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We also don't allow whitewashing or the writing of hagiographies. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewashing? You mean adding the fact that the "source material" has a footnote that pertains to the WHOLE article being an OPINION, based off a report that is INFACT an OPINION. Since when does Wiki allow opinions to be claimed as "FACTS". I at least add the footnote to add content that shows the that the source used was discredited by FaceBook themself. How about sticking with Wiki TOS and not allow an "Attack Page". Arbrnirish (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide that source, the one containing the footnote. You don't understand the PAG (policies and guidelines) here, and that is one part of the reasons you are running into problems. No matter how right you may be, edit warring will get you blocked. You must stick to discussion on the article's talk page and not seek to force your preferred version. That never works. Seek to convince other editors, and if you can change the existing consensus, only then will the content be changed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is already provided. It is the source that is being used by the person that wants this to be an "Attack Page" they cherry pick the "Attack" part of the page but leave out the fact that the same source article has a footnote saying Facebook had put out a statement on the topic. I try and add that and it's "whitewashing". No that's the truth and in the same source. Facts don't need to be "voted on" the facts are that facts. The article used as the source is 100% opinion based off a report that is 100% opinion. That Facebook themselves have said has nothing to do with their decision to suspend anyone. I don't understand the PAG? That weird, because I thought "Attack Pages" were not allowed, as per The PAG. I just find it hypocritical that a "site" that wants to bring truth and knowledge to people, doesn't allow Truth to be spoken, without a "vote" on what's true. It is a testament on why "True Democracy" can never work, voting on what's "Truth". Just like "The Orville" episode. Arbrnirish (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to help you, don't force me to search for that source. Provide it right here so I can easily find that footnote. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/17/covid-misinformation-conspiracy-theories-ccdh-report Arbrnirish (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I found it. So what? Facebook didn't like getting caught with their pants down because they allowed such deception from her and others on their platform. So what? We document what they did wrong and what she did wrong.

Every single thing you do seems to be aimed at a pro-fringe agenda, a whitewashing agenda. We do not allow that here. We are a mainstream encyclopedia and do not allow the advocacy of fringe POV. We document her dangerous and fringe POV without advocating them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, "Attack Page" OK, you know a page that only points out all negative points. But, adding things that would point people to look into it more on their own, bad? But ok, if I am "white washing" why take down the article about her and RFK Jr being in an Anti-Trust Lawsuit against the people, like the CCDH. Don't worry I have links (https://theiowastandard.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-files-antitrust-lawsuit-against-legacy-media-for-efforts-to-exclude-rivals-from-internet-platforms/) and (chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-411/288893/20231106124321084_2023-11-06%20-%20Murthy%20v.%20Missouri%20-%20Respondents%20Opposition%20to%20Kennedy%20Motion%20to%20Intervene%20-%20Final%20for%20Filing.pdf). Seems to me, leaving this out, literally proves this is an Attack page. It only wants to add things that a negative about the person and not let people anything that would shine her in a good light. So, keep the same energy about being a "mainstream encyclopedia" (even though being 'main stream' didn't work out so well for media, since they only catered to a bubbled crowd) and you should back me up on allowing those sources to be used to add more to the article. But, I'm sure you'll find a way that it "isn't the same" she is evil and everyone should know. God I hope you do. Arbrnirish (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take this suggestion to the article's talk page. Also, find better sources than The Iowa Standard. The primary source is a primary court record, and we don't normally allow such sources without them being accompanied by several secondary sources. If this lawsuit is significant enough for mention here, it should be easy to find plenty of coverage in major reliable sources, and it better be about Erin, not just Kennedy.

Also stop misusing the term "attack page". We have a specific meaning here and only use it for UNSOURCED and entirely negative articles, not properly-sourced negative content, the kind you don't like and have tried to remove. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]