Talk:Michael Harris (producer)
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Persistent promotional edits
editIt appears that my attempt to add a relatively small amount of content, all of which is cited by reliable sources, has been met with a hostile response from either bots or human editors. What's more, it appears that not only were my edits removed, several large portions of the previous article have now been removed, and several flags have been put at the top of the article. To my knowledge, no flags at all were affixed to this article prior to my first attempt last week at editing it. Why would this happen? If Wikipedia and these new editors don't like or accept my edits, then simply delete my contribution and put the article back the way it was. As it is now, I feel obligated to at least not allow my fair and rules-abiding contributions to cause this article to now be flagged as unreliable.
I have a printout from the web of the article as it appeared months ago and will attempt to restore some of the critical content per the rules of the Wikipedia community. I will continue to watch this talk space and be ready to defend my edits. To be clear, I do not know or have any association with the subject. But I am keenly aware of his work, through others and in the local media (we are in the Pacific Northwest of the U.S.A.). As I informed another Wikipedia talk space, a simple review will show this computer which we've owned for a long time has never created a Wikipedia account. My IP address may show that I occasionally use a server that is not owned by me, but rather a large public business and commercial landlord with hundreds of clients filing in and out of his and his tenants' businesses, all using a common server. I suspect the Wikipedia bots have noticed previous Wikipedia edits coming from this server and made the conclusion that I am associated with those previous editors. I am not. At least I cannot say for sure, given the traffic on that server.
In reviewing the recent major edits, most appear unnecessarily reductive; some appear in fact almost hostile. For example, the editor's decision to insert the word "regional" before Emmy Awards, obstensively to diminish the significance of the reward. A simple review of Emmy materials confirm that he's won nine regional Emmy Awards and three National Emmy Awards, including a News & Documentary Emmy Award in 2018. This is information which I believe is available elsewhere on the internet. It is verifiable. Also, the removal of the reliably cited statistics provided by Meltwater Group seems unnecessary and excludes very interesting and relevant content, quantifying the reach of the Pacific Whale Watch Association by, according to Meltwater's website, is the largest international media monitoring firm in the world. The citation is verifiable and neutral. And why remove the reliably cited references to the Titanic out of the "Early Life" section? The names of the people who perished on the Titanic are easily verifiable and reliable. If these edits were made for space, an argument might be made to cut all of this material out. But the article never appeared too long to me.
I did make one possible mistake in my contribution -- when referring to a Washington Post article about the 2020 Democratic primaries I wrote "February" instead of the full date, assuming the context of "2020" would preclude that necessity. It was corrected by an editor.
PLEASE PLAY FAIRLY, Wikipedia Community. Be more inclusive and helpful to a new member. Thank you very much. -KillerWhaleGuy — Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerWhaleGuy (talk • contribs) 00:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Despite numerous warnings and discussions, yours is an account that continues to be dedicated to a narrow promotional agenda--that doesn't work here. I've opened the second ANI thread in a week involving your edits [1]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Karma! words can't express the joy seeing this individual called out. Thank you Wiki personnel. 2601:601:1B80:9D5B:5C57:71B3:2D58:D69A (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)