User talk:Brandnewpete: Difference between revisions

Line 31: Line 31:

:::I was responding to the accusations that editor had made in edit summaries, edit warring ”with” me, not to the templated message above. [[User:Brandnewpete|Brandnewpete]] ([[User talk:Brandnewpete#top|talk]]) 22:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

::::That’s a thing to ask the other editor; God gave us talk pages for that. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 21:26, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don’t believe in God. [[User:Brandnewpete|Brandnewpete]] ([[User talk:Brandnewpete#top|talk]]) 17:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

== Editing with a conflict of interest ==

Hi Brandnewpete! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 19:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brandnewpete! I noticed that you’ve made several edits in order to restore your preferred version of an article. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you’re aware of Wikipedia’s edit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you’re doing is justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages in order to try to reach a consensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement, please use one of the dispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors’ changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. Thank you. livelikemusic (TALK!) 22:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What guideline says I can’t cite a historically reliable source? Brandnewpete (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The message above doesn’t say that you can’t cite a historically reliable source; in fact it doesn’t refer to citing sources at all. It is about repeatedly trying to impose your own preferred version in an article when you have found that one or more other people disagree with you. I strongly advise you to take that message seriously; if you don’t, it’s possible that you may be blocked from editing by an administrator. JBW (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the accusations that editor had made in edit summaries, edit warring with me, not to the templated message above. Brandnewpete (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a thing to ask the other editor; God gave us talk pages for that. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe in God. Brandnewpete (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brandnewpete. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation‘s terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.– Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published expert sources are not impermissible. Brandnewpete (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, under very limited circumstances. But you appear to have a conflict of interest with Robert Christgau and as such should not be editing any article touching on the subject without declaring your conflict of interest. What you are doing by repeatedly using sources tied to one individual is a form of WP:REFSPAM. Edit warring to restore such links when concerns are raised violates multiple site policies and guidelines.– Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the expert in question is a more notable source than the one you restored. Notability being a factor to weigh, according to the guideline for the area edited. Brandnewpete (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My reply directly above applies here as well.– Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be misinterpreting my actions. I’m not inserting a particular citation with the intention of “populat[ing] numerous articles with a particular citation,” although that can be a consequence. But rather, I am trying to “help build the encyclopedia,” as the policy says: “Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia.” Brandnewpete (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take your reversal here for example. I added prose to an otherwise empty reception section and replaced a marginally notable publication with a highly notable critic. Which is helping build the article. Brandnewpete (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not a good faith addition when you have a conflict of interest with the subject of the links. — Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest is described as “contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships.” I don’t have a relationship with Robert Christgau. Brandnewpete (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And nothing in my handful of edits there reasonably gives an impression that I do. Hence, my interpretation of the edit summary as a personal attack and grounds for reversal. Brandnewpete (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have I interpreted that correctly? Brandnewpete (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everything all right pal? Brandnewpete (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please mind your manners, Brandnewpete; thank you. Also, apparently there’s two or three editors who seem to think that your edits give the appearance of COI editing, so perhaps there is something to that. Rather than fight and deflect, you can just address that. You said you have no relationship with Christgau–great, I hope subsequent edits confirm that. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manners. Like making accusations without proof? Or snarking asides Brandnewpete (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No like gaslighting. And that was not an aside: if one editor reverts you, with an explanation, and another editor tells you to be careful, you should ask the first editor what they meant. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you’re projecting. And being pretty hard on me too… Brandnewpete (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply