Djpeebs

March 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Adam Leitman Bailey has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Adam Leitman Bailey was changed by Djpeebs (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.882128 on 2017-03-06T17:43:39 00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Adam Leitman Bailey

Thanks for your edits. I've toned them down a bit - the article speaks for itself, and, as a general matter it's better if Wikipedia articles maintain a neutral tone. Please take it up on the Talk page if you would like to reinstate your stronger language. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

You are reverting to, erroneous information. James Dawson was never a client of Bailey's, he's a tenant in a building represented by Bailey. I will not allow you to whitewash the reality. I have made accurate and true edits that are toned down by removal of all extraneous words that could be construed as judgmental. Your insistence on keeping falsehoods is unsettling and I question your motivation and incentive to do so. My edit is well within Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted your change again. Those are lawsuit allegations, not "facts", and reporting the fact of the lawsuit without the sensational allegations is sufficient. Don't edit war. JohnInDC (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Let me suggest that you let the article be at this point. Expanding on and detailing allegations in a lawsuit - by definition one person's versions of the facts, which remain to be proved - is not a neutral approach to the subject. You saw that the other editor was blocked for his persistence in adding this troublesome material; don't follow him down that path! JohnInDC (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I would like an answer to a couple of questions, asked in good faith for my edification, if you would be so kind - 1) How can an article reporting on a lawsuit become more of a primary source than the lawsuit itself? 2) How can a link to that lawsuit as an attribution be considered defamatory or otherwise against Wiki guidelines, acknowledging that the content of an article has been referred to? Thank you very much. DJPeebs 18:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that you've not yet read WP:PRIMARY, which explains the various kinds of labels attached to sources, which ones are preferred, and most importantly why first-line "primary" sources are not favored. The gist is that we generally rely on secondary sources to establish what's important and what we say about subjects. By citing mostly to these secondary sources, we reduce the influence of a particular editor's interpretation of the basic source materials. The link to this lawsuit is borderline because the plaintiff says all kinds of unfavorable things about Bailey, which may or may not be true (we'll know better after a trial) and because Wikipedia reports properly sourced information rather than serving as a megaphone for just - things people say. Is that helpful? JohnInDC (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate that answer, although in my heart I know without a doubt that an attributed link to the lawsuit, without further editing the content of this section, is not only warranted, but after reading WP:PRIMARY in its entirety, know with all certainty that such an attribution is allowed. To have been threatened with being Blocked from Wikipedia by a cabal of editors for my insistence in this regard rubs me the wrong way. At this point, however, I have no choice but to comply. Since you have left me no outs, I concede. For now. As the situation develops and (if) the facts come out, I will revisit. Again, thank you for taking the time to elucidate your points. I respect that you're doing what you truly believe is in the best interest of Wikipedia. DJPeebs 18:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your graciousness. I've said elsewhere that other things I've read about Bailey don't lead me to believe that he's a particularly nice guy. I am not claiming that Mr. Adam Leitman Bailey could not possibly have said the things alleged in the complaint, or done those things, but rather that it's the policy of Wikipedia to tread lightly on matters that call into question a person's integrity or honesty or reputation, and that allegations in a lawsuit are in the end just too one-sided to support that kind of thing. It's not (in my mind) a matter of whitewashing the guy's reputation but rather being dead sure that Wikipedia is on unassailable grounds if it's going to contain an article that has highly unfavorable information about them. You could argue that this policy leads to a slightly rosy take on - well, just about anyone with a biography article here, and maybe that's true, but it's better I think to be safe than sorry. (You know, Wikipedia could be sued itself!) If and when this lawsuit results in a judgment - which is reported in 3d party sources - then it would be fair to revisit this issue; though even then including it may not be a lock. We'll have to wait & see. I hope this helps and thanks again for your kind words. JohnInDC (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

3RR warning

Your recent editing history at Adam Leitman Bailey shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. JohnInDC (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss your edit at the article Talk page, where I've started a section. You should read the Wikipedia policies on neutral point of view and biographies of living persons too. You can report the fact of the lawsuit and the general allegations without the details which - I remind you - are merely allegations in a lawsuit, not fact. JohnInDC (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you clear up some confusion?

I asked you this on my Talk page but possibly you haven't seen it. There, you said that you were the first one to add material about the Adam Leitman Bailey lawsuit to that article, but the page history shows that User:Richterer11111 made that first edit, about half an hour before your first edit on the subject (link). I may be misunderstanding, and if so, please forgive me, but - are you saying that you are also Richterer11111? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not. When I made my edit the paragraph was not there. Must've happened at the same time. DJPeebs 14:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks very much. JohnInDC (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Adam Leitman Bailey. Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Please tell me specifically how an editor can take a single allegation from a public lawsuit, at his sole whim, to the exclusion of the other allegations. Why that single one? Why not the others? He is the sole determining factor here and anyone disagreeing will be kicked off Wikipedia?? I linked an attribution to the actual lawsuit not a derivative newspaper article, as is the case now. As it stands, this paragraph is in direct contravention to biographies of living persons and he should be kicked off asap. How can a link to a public lawsuit in anyway go against unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory? As it stands now, the paragraph is dead wrong factually. You are making a mockery of the editing process by condoning inclusion inaccurate information. DJPeebs 17:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

See WP:BLPPRIMARY. I've closed the discussions at the Talk page. Whether you think you should "stand down" is immaterial. You either do so or you will be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

OK. Could you please answer my question of how a newspaper article is considered more relevant than the actual lawsuit it reports about and how a single allegation of four can be decided by a single editor to the exclusion of the other allegations? Thank you. DJPeebs 18:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If you continue to threaten me with being blocked for asking a question, I will do what I can to appeal your authoritarian and flippant use of what power you may have. I'm asking a question on my Talk page, which you refuse to answer presumably because you are well aware of the de minimis reduction of a newspaper article to a total inaccuracy. This is a far greater transgression than my efforts for truth and facts. Your refusal to address my concerns and turn immediately to the power you have goes against all propriety. DJPeebs 18:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)