Lion126

May 2015

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Lol. Children these days, I swear.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

This is the most absurd abuse of what little power you children have.

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Lion126. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.  Drmies (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a way back from this

Much as I deprecate your behaviour towards other editors, and the previous bullying and hectoring tone you adopted when you did not get your way, there is a way back. It is not in my gift, but is in the gift of the community appointed administrators. I am not an administrator. My suggestion is to wait a few days to put the emotions behind you and consider what you want to do on Wikipedia. If you do want to edit here, and it is a decent hobby, then:

1. Apologise and withdraw unreservedly what has been perceived within our rules as a legal threat
2. Commit to avoiding areas where you have a conflict of interest
3. Commit to behaving with true civility towards all other editors
4. Stop all bluster, bullying behaviour and accusations. Those were the behaviours that caused this
5. Ask, before using the template in the block notice above, what else you need to do to show that you know you have made a mistake and will be a good citizen here, and request to be unblocked.

You need to do all this here, on your talk page.

The key thing is that, should you be successful in having the block removed, you get one go at being a good citizen. If your block is lifted there may be conditions imposed on you. There is no way around a block other than appealing it in this way. Use of another account or use of no account at all will ensure that you have no rights here of any description, ever.

Please consider the approach I have outlined. As long as you edit outside the areas where you have a WP:COI then you could enjoy being here. Fiddle Faddle 08:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lion126 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have absolutely nothing to apologize for, and this block is not only unjust, but also was done without the due process stated in the NLT policy, specifically "Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved". Not once was I asked to clarify my meaning, and when I attempted to, I was summarily called a liar and was Blocked. Furthermore, all of this could have been avoided, if when the alleged legal threat was brought to the admin board, and I attempted to clarify that I was making no such threat, an assumption of good faith had been applied. WP requires an apology? Fine. I'm sorry that your administrators misunderstood my comment.

Decline reason:

This combative and unconstructive unblock request is a good indicator that blocking you was the right thing. Max Semenik (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Lion126 (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

From long experience here I can tell you that this approach is digging a deeper hole. Please reconsider your approach to the request you are making. This one is likely to fail (0.9 probability) Fiddle Faddle 14:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me in what way this is "digging a deeper hole", as opposed to it being viewed for what it IS: A statement of facts?
1) Was WP's stated protocol of "seek to clarify user's meaning and make sre that a mere misunderstanding is not involved" utilized?
2) Was I essentially labeled a Liar in more than one place? ("It's not so much COI as it is bullshit. Chuck D. is, and has been for a long time, managed by Walter Leaphart. See [32] and [33]. Sir Mix-A-Lot is managed by Richard De La Font. Anyone who comes around claiming "I manage Chuck D, so I'm important" is full of shit. I'd believe nothing this guy says from now on. --Jayron32 01:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)" AND "Of course Lion126 is going to say there was no threat of legal action, but we, being individual, rational, adult(ish) human beings, are able to make our own evaluation and decide that Lion's disclaimer is just self-serving BS")

Please point out to me which parts of this factual statement of events, constitutes "digging a deeper hole".

NONE of what transpired yesterday was remotely necessary. I actually attempted to thwart much of it, early. " Perhaps if we all behave as adults, myself included, we can achieve the desired results. Lion126 (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)".

For the record, I will once again state, I in no way MADE, IMPLIED,INDICATED OR IN ANY OTHER WAY THREATENED LEGAL ACTION. I also STATED such "I made no threat, direct or otherwise. I advised checking with your legal department. simple enough advice. Lion126 (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)"Lion126 (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I refer you to my advice at the start of this section. I am not going to enter into a debate with you over this. I have advised you on the way out of this. You have the free choice to continue on your path of self-righteous indignation or to adopt a pragmatic approach. It must be obvious to you which of the two choices is more likely to lead to your being unblocked, or it ought to be. Please spend time in mature reflection and reconsider your approach to requesting an unblock. Your approach might work, but I think it so unlikely as to discount it completely. Block capitals are considered to be shouting and aggressive, and your contrition is not apparent.

With regard to none of this being remotely necessary, the whole brouhaha was created by your intemperate post at the Teahouse Questions Forum. Asking for help in understanding the review would have been a wiser approach. The reviewer would have been pleased to explain it to you, as would any editor in good standing here. Fiddle Faddle 16:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a debate. I asked simple questions above. If you feel that caps are "shouting and aggressive", you once again are misreading me, which seems to be the approach of the admin I have seen with the exception of Dragons Fight. My caps are an EMPHASIS LIKE THIS, meant to denote a point that I feel needs stronger than typical type. Perhaps it would have been better if I had said I was not threatening legal action in any way shape or form (provided my limited knowledge of coding is remembered correctly).

Point being, I asked 2 simple questions above. If you and the rest of admin refuse to answer them, than I must assume an admission of guilt on your behalf, combined with a refusal to enter into reasonable and civil discussion, as stated on the WP NLT page. Lion126 (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. I have offered you good advice all the way through this, from your unpleasant outburst on the Teahouse Questions Forum onwards, and I have been very patient with you and polite to you. It is not my interpretation that capitals are shouting and aggressive, it is common across the internet, and it is good netiquette to avoid them.

With regard to your questions, I am afraid I have no interest in them at all. All I have an interest is things which will build a better encyclopaedia. That includes hoping and asking for measured, calm and decent behaviour from people. That is what I am asking you for. And I am suggesting that, if you would like to enjoy editing Wikipedia, there is a route forward, one I have outlined to you. Only you can decide how to behave and what to do next. I hope you decide to join us and enjoy working here. Fiddle Faddle 17:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I see that your request has just been declined. At risk of seeing to say "I told you so", please learn from this. Fiddle Faddle 17:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

As previously stated, do as you feel necessary. The course of all these conversations has one thing in common. If one defends their position, they are declared the enemy, and blocked, ie Maxsem's judgement that by defending my position and not cowtowing to your ridiculous demand for an apology, as being "combative and unconstructive".Lion126 (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, you are exhibiting the behaviour of being combative and unconstructive. This is your free choice. It's pretty simple. Continue this way and you will reinforce people's view of you. Ameliorate your behaviour and you will change it. You are the only one in step here. Your military experience may suggest to you that this is unlikely to be correct. Fiddle Faddle 17:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If it is considered to be combative to defend my position and not back down from it, than so be it. Lion126 (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if you have noticed the irony in that sentence. Fiddle Faddle 17:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Point Lion126 (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

However, in the effort to have a reasonable and civil discussion, I noticed on the WP Block page, it states that "Blocks aren't meant to punish". While there was certainly a thinly veiled effort to say that all the pages AFD were matters of policy and not punitive, the evidence shows otherwise. Every single artist listed for AFD as being "not noteworthy" were proven otherwise. They are one and all considered not merely "icons" and "legends", but are in fact, well documented Founding Fathers of their genres. That being said, it appears that the nominator (conversely, the same that nominated me for blocking), did no research whatsoever, prior to arbitrarily deciding that these artists were "not noteworthy". In fact, the nomination for Full Force was directly stated to be nonsense, by one of your own contributors. The same way those AFD nominations were punitive (against me, BTW, while holding the artists responsible), so too was the choice to block me. It is merely for standing up. As has been repeatedly pointed out, I made no legal threat, nor was it my intent to do so. Therefore, there is no justifiable reason for this blockLion126 (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Wise commanders have chosen to lose a battle to win the war at times. I know how Wikipedia works because I am used to it. It contains people who have the same rational and irrational reactions as do you or I. Sometimes all of us make errors, and that is truly fine. It is how we recover from those errors that is the mark of who we are. Right now I can tell that you are angry and upset, though the emotions have cooled somewhat. I'm not going to talk about whether you are justified or not because the situation is way past that. Except that it all happened, the incidents surrounding your block no longer matter to folk here. All they are concerned about is whether you will, in the future, be a net benefit to the project.

Is that fair? Maybe, maybe not.

On a technical matter, when a legal threat is perceived it must be reported. Those are the rules here to protect the Wikimedia Foundation. If it turns out to be real then it is important not to ignore it. If it is bluster then it is bluster. If it was not a threat but a misunderstanding then that is fine, too.

Deletion discussions are safe things to propose, even if for misguided reasons. If the nominator was right then the article is deleted. If wrong then it is retained. Almost always the article is improved if it is retained.

What they (admins) want and need to see is an acknowledgement that mistakes were made and that those mistakes will not be made in the future. IT is always the blocked editor who has made mistakes (that is life). They need to see that collegiate editing is the future committed behaviour. An admin considering an unblock will react better to someone who displays willingness to acknowledge mistakes than one who stands his ground, whether he is right or wrong. I still recommend asking what the original blocking admin would wish to happen before recommending an unblock or reversing the block themselves. Or ask the one who declined the request.

Draw an emotional line under this, then choose the intellectual route most likely to have the block lifted, and work positively towards that. Wikipedia is sometimes a harsh place, but it's a consuming hobby. Don't allow yourself to lose he chance to participate. Fiddle Faddle 19:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Having just spent a few moments reading the unblock request policy, I have done all that is required in the original unblock request.

As a user requesting to be unblocked, it is your responsibility to explain why you believe your block violates Wikipedia's blocking policy or should otherwise be reversed. Specifically:

   State your reason for believing your block was incorrect or for requesting reconsideration. It is not enough if you just say that the block was "wrong" or "unfair", or another user violated a policy first. You must explain why it was wrong to block you, or why it should be reversed.
   Address the blocking administrator's concerns about your conduct (the reason given for your block). As explained above, you have been informed about the reason for your block. You must address this reason in your request. This means that you must either explain why the block reason is incorrect or not applicable to your conduct, or you must convince the reviewing administrator that you won't do it again.
   Give evidence. If you state that you did or did not do something, or that the blocking administrator is missing something important, please provide brief details and a link in the form of a differential edit ("diff") if possible, or other evidence showing that you don't (or didn't) do what the block reasons states. 

I need clarification, as per the directions above, as to what exactly I am blocked for.

The Block as I understand it has to do with a perceived legal threat. This perception has been repeatedly refuted, and is an incorrect assumption of the indications or intentions behind my wording. However, while I do not admit to your perception being my intent, I acknowledge that that is how it was taken, albeit erroneously, and will choose better wording in the future. A different wording that I might have used would be "When you represent a company or entity that is not your own, in an administrative capacity, it would be wise to consult with the proper departments, such as their legal department, before arbitrarily deciding the notability of a celebrity's status. Exceeding your authority is an easy thing to do, even when it is not intended. It would be unfortunate for a simple misunderstanding to result in a negative impact on any involved".Lion126 (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, there was a consensus that your words constituted a legal threat per WP:NLT. I was merely acting on what was a clear consensus among editors. The way out of that particular mire is easy, and at the risk of being redundant, I'll make it simple. Did you intend a legal threat according to the stipulations in WP:NLT? Simple yes or no. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  *@Drmies:Simple answer: No,I did not
• Good. Listen, I'm wanted in the kitchen; I'll get back to you. In the meantime, thanks, and thanks to Timtrent as well. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Alright, Chilaquiles, first time. Now, you're unblocked, but there were, ahem, other things brought up. No doubt Timtrent can fiddle-faddle you up to speed on those issues, like combativeness and all that. Bon appetit, Drmies (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  
  

@Drmies: Thanks. @Timtrent: Further discussion is waranted ref the incorrect info on some of my clients, specifically Kangol Kid, of a neutral but factual basis. For instance, the page states he was born in Haiti and emigrated to the US. In fact he was born in Brooklyn, NY and grew up there. His PARENTS are the ones born in Haiti. Considering that I am the one who would have the correct information, how will we approach these corrections while avoiding COI?Lion126 (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yay! You achieved it. Now, I will help where I can, but it's almost 1am here, and therefore, not tonight! Though do see my suggestion below about mentoring. And, whatever you do, at least until you have learned your way around, please, pretty please, do not resubmit a draft on your own org! We can discuss that another time. Fiddle Faddle 23:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

How to attract another editor's attention when you are blocked

There is one simple way. For example, to attract my attention you deploy {{Ping|Timtrent}} here (the only area your block allows you to edit) and this attracts my attention through a notification system. So, if you wanted to attract Drmies (the admin who blocked you) you would use {{Ping|Drmies}} and so forth.

The text of the block log is as follows:

"03:36, 12 May 2015 Drmies (talk | contribs) blocked Lion126 (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Making legal threats)"

So it would be well to have a conversation with Drmies over the matter. Good luck. Do it well. Fiddle Faddle 20:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I have just discovered that Ping only works when you sign the post as well (You forgot. It happens). I never knew that before. I'll attract Drmies here with this message. My apologies for my lack of knowledge. Drmies, you have the simple answer at the foot of the section above. Fiddle Faddle 23:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: lol I completely understand the kitchen calling. I am the cook in our home, and my wife has massive amounts of food allergies, so I've had to learn much that is new for me. @Timtrent: its all good. As evidenced by this issue and entire thread, we are all human and make mistakesLion126 (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes. Some of our best editors made massive errors early on. It happens. Often we have to solve things that we never dreamt we would have to solve. Sometimes we have to eat the other fellow's humble pie portion. It tastes bitter, but we eat it anyway. Continue to work with Drmies to determine if the block can be lifted and what is required of you, and then it will be possible to put this in the 'baptism of fire' compartment and move ahead.

I was wondering. You have had such an 'interesting' experiences that I think you would find a mentor useful. WP:CO-OP is the place to explore that after you have achieved unblocking. I recommend it to you. Fiddle Faddle 23:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Correcting factual errors and avoiding WP:COI

There are ways of achieving this. Too tired to do this now, but read WP:TRUTH which will probably perturb you. We can only go on verified facts, even if these differ from the truth, and verification comes thus:

"We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42"

In other words, if (say) The New York Times says that black is white, and the report meets that set of triple criteria, then we record it as black being white, and use the NYT article as a reference for that, even though we know it not to be true. We must absolutely disregard any personal knowledge that we have about black and white. It feels bizarre, but it's the way this place works, because it is an encyclopaedia and thus records what other reliable sources say.

Hang on to your facts until tomorrow, and I will go through the area of managing WP:COI with you some more. but right now sleep is essential. Fiddle Faddle 23:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@Timtrent: Buona nottaLion126 (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Right, now to handling conflicts of interest:

consensus

We start with a basic statement. Every article is in the current state it is in, good or bad, correct or incorrect because of consensus. Sometime that is a de facto consensus because folk aren't at all interested the article, sometimes it is a consensus that is built by discussion and by passionate argument. An example of the latter is the whole set of talk page archives at Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories where the form of the article is discussed, in detail and at length. The discussion is hotly contested, almost to the level of every comma. This is the article I used to learn:

• how to make edits in a subject I knew absolutely nothing about
• how to build consensus towards a neutral and factual article
• how to work with dissenters to allow them to make valid contributions and to know that, despite their voice being one of dissent, that dissent was valued

To an extent, I succeeded. I also learned how to submit to a consensus that I disagreed with, possibly the most important lesson available to me.

Conflict of interest

The first thing to do with COI is to declare it with clarity, and without ambiguity. Your near disaster was caused in part when folk assumed that, since "Fred" was your client, that you were Fred's manager. I admit to assuming that myself for a while. So the declaration has to be along the lines of "Because of my job/business, I know Fred well. He is a client of my business. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not his commercial manager." Something along those lines is absolutely clear.

Non controversial COI edits

If you have already edited in an article about Fred, there is a template you ought deploy at the head of the article's talk page. It is also good practice, and I advise it, for people to do this on Draft: articles or Sandbox articles they create. {{Connected contributor}} is reasonably self explanatory. If you intend to make non controversial edits to that article then you should plan to deploy it at the earliest opportunity. It isn't compulsory, but it displays a professional and aware attitude.

Note that I said 'non controversial edits' here. Controversial edits require different handling. A non controversial edit is one that is a widely known and accepted fact, with or without citation, that is unlikely to be susceptible to challenge, and which has no positive impact on the COI editor making the edit. There is consensus at work here, but of the 'no-one objects' sort. The moment someone objects, even incorrectly, it becomes controversial because there is no consensus for it

Controversial COI edits

The controversial edit is the reverse of the non controversial one. It is an edit which, without citation, will not be believed. It is a fact susceptible to challenge. It is a fact whose statement creates a positive benefit for the editor making the edit, perhaps in business or personal life. This is not an exhaustive definition, but I am sure you get my drift. It is an edit that is likely to require a formal or informal consensus in order to be made to the article. Obvious edits in the class are, for example, to do with Fred's sexuality if he is not classically heterosexual, and if Fred himself has not declared it and been reported to have done so in WP:RS.

We can handle this with ease. We ask, well, require, the COI editor to request an edit be made. There is a template for it to be deployed, in a new section, on the article's talk page. I am only speaking of articles, Drafts and User Sandboxes are under different rules.

{{Request edit}} is to be deployed here, followed by a description of the edit. A useful form of words is along the lines of:

"I am concerned that this fact, stated thus '<quote that fact as stated in the article here>' is incorrect. I suggest the following form of words replace it '<quote what you would say if you edited the article yourself>' and I back this up with <source of the replacement fact or correction>."

You need, then, to be perfectly prepared for this not to be accepted by the other editors. You may make arguments based on sources, only on sources, for its inclusion, but rhetoric will never win the day. Indeed you must cultivate the state of "I care about this enough to ask for it to happen, but not enough to go into battle over it."

As you can see, and have probably worked out from WP:TRUTH we are concerned only with what is said in reliable sources.

This feels very bureaucratic, and it is. But, to edit here, we choose to submit ourselves to the will of the community and of consensus. If it goes for our view, great, if it goes against our view, also great.

I hope that goes a long way towards clarifying this awkward area for you. Ask questions about anything I have left unclear. Fiddle Faddle 08:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft: namespace and User Sandboxes

Apart from my advice to deploy {{Connected contributor}} you may start out by entering all sorts of COI material into these namespaces. We still deprecate COI, but we work with editors as reviewers, those of us who review, to help them to handle it.

The main issue we find is WP:POV pushing and self puffery. These are expected and normal. After all, who would not write about their own business in the best possible light? The WP:AFC process is designed, among other things, to help rip out things that are unacceptable in the main namespace.

We work with the author to show them what to rip out, how to reference, and much more. Our guiding principles are WP:N and WP:V. Without Notability the draft may never be an article. and it is Verifiability that proves notability. They are two sides of the same pancake. I have a whole slew of standard responses I use, sometimes alone, sometimes in combination, when I review, and I modify these according to need. They are at User:Timtrent/Reviewing and are pretty self explanatory. Each paragraph is intended to be used alone or in combination with other paragraphs, and they cover most of the errors I see. Reading those gives you an idea of what is required.

We push the draft back to the author if we see the hope of acceptance in the near term future (that is, we can see Notability even if it has not yet been established in the draft, or we offer it for deletion of we see no current hope. I offered your own draft for deletion because I saw no current hope. It was then for others to see my proposal and to agree or to disagree with me. We're back to consensus. As your business gains media coverage then it gains notability which can be verified. I'm happy in due course to work with you to determine with precision if your business is yet ready for a Wikipedia article, and I'm happy to be in friendly disagreement with you if I consider it not to be and you consider it to be. The great thing is that neither of us is the final arbiter. The community is.

The review process is intended to be iterative. I wonder if we ought to be clearer on that somehow. Declining a draft is not final. It pushes it back for more work, unless the reviewer expresses the opinion that more work would be fruitless. If that is expressed it is not final. Other folk have other opinions. The approach we hope for is one where the author asks for help. I know you were asking for help now, but your initial approach was, well, unusual, as I am sure you see. Even so we, as reviewers, are not touchy/feely folk. We have a knowledge of the things that will make an article work in main namespace and we have an enormous backlog. Add to that the fact that every last editor here is a volunteer, and you start to get the picture.

Just like your edits, every one of our edits is open to scrutiny and comment by any editor at all. Our reviews are edits. When we get it wrong, we get it wrong. We're called out over our mistakes and most of us learn.

I seem to be off on a ramble, so it's time to shut up for a bit. I hope this is giving you an insight into what goes on here, though. Fiddle Faddle 10:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that incredible amount of iinformation. There is much for me to learn, and frankly much I think,that needs significantly overhauled in process. I will, however, dance the magic dance, personal feelings not withstanding. When one thinks of an encyclopedia, one thinks of a proper source of accurate information, where a student can learn exhaustive information on a topic, and perhaps do written reports for school, etc. on such topic, with facts and accuracy. "Community consensus" has zero to do with statements of fact. For instance, neo-nazis would tout Adolf Hitler as a hero, a great leader, an inspiration to racial purity, and would have "credible sources" they could cite, to back up this claim. As a jew, I would state that Adolf Hitler was an insane, genocidal maniac, who should have been stopped at Munich, years before he had the chance to commit such attrocities. I could do so with "credible sources" that I could cite to back my claim. Those are both nothing more than opinions. The fact is he was a dictator who led Germany as fuhrer from August 2, 1934 until his suicide on April 30, 1945. This example is why I don't understand how an "encyclopedia" is more concerned with "consensus" than fact.

either way, I will play along...ebidently, I'm rambling as well. Mmmore coffee, it would appear, is needed. Thank you again for taking all the time you have, to guide my editing and contributions. I will keep all of this in mind, as I move forward. Lion126 (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the process. Wikipedia started with a very small set of processes. Human beings decided to make up rules and complications and made life complex. We have the Wikipedia we deserve. I wonder whether it is the one we want? But we are stuck with it, for good or ill.

With regard to Adolf he does not get a free ride. What he gets is an authoritative ride where all his documented successes failures, frailties and unpleasantnesses are recorded here. As the son of a refugee from Hitler, I have no issue with the way he is portrayed.

The consensus element is because no-one, literally no-one, is in charge. This is the asylum that the lunatics run. It works ok. Fiddle Faddle 18:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

An apology

I definitely don't expect you to accept it, but I apologise unreservedly for being aggressive and not showing good faith towards you yesterday- whilst you may have been a bit aggressive, I guess this was mainly due to confusion of the complication Wikipedia processes (which I see other people are now helping you with). Many of my deletions actions towards articles weren't necessary, and some have been withdrawn, and although I did genuinely believe your actions constituted a legal threat, the whole argument at ANI was also unnecessary. I wish you the best of luck with your editing career at Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph2302:- Bro, as you get to know me, which it appears you will, you'll find that while I will argue passionately (read aggressively if you like), when its over, its over. There is nothing to forgive. You and I have no issue, indeed I welcome your constructive advice, as I learn my way around here. b'ShalomLion126 (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)