User talk:Bruce Kluger

August 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm DMacks. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Someone saying "I did it" isn't that reliable a claim, and the timeframe of it seems many years after the other claims. That casts doubt on the later claim being "first". Please find some better sources if you wish to contradict other independently-sourced claims. DMacks (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Kluger, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Bruce Kluger! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Mz7 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

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:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
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) 04:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017[edit]

Your recent editing history at Ga-ga 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use the article talk page Talk:Ga-ga to discuss your issues with other editors. The article talk page is for discussing article content, and nothing else. Discuss content, not editors. I have removed the thread in question. If you think there has been abusive behaviour then discuss it politely with the editors in question or take it to the appropriate venue. You might want to read WP:BOOMERANG first though since your hands are far from clean in this.

As for the article changes, as with all article changes this needs to be discussed on the article talk page until consensus is reached. Only after the failure of a thorough discussion to reach a consensus should the steps of dispute resolution be considered.

Your edits were undone four times, by three different editors. You were making major revisions to the article and should have taken the matter to the article's talk page after the first undo per WP:BRD. I have not looked at the content in question yet. Meters (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your posting to Wikipedia:Third opinion also. You were linking to your Talk:Ga-ga#ABUSIVE_BEHAVIOR

That is not a thread about a content dispute or a sourcing issue, so Third Opinion is not an appropriate venue. If you insist on raising the supposed abusive behaviour then the appropriate venue would be WP:ANI. I don't recommend it, and I don't think you will have any luck.
The thread has been removed from the article's talk page as it is not the appropriate place to have such a discussion in the first place.
Even had you linked to the thread about the content dispute rather than the behaviour issue, Third Opinion would not be appropriate. Read the introduction. The bold bits stating that only two editors are involved (you have been undone by three editors) and that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page (there has been no response to your recent post to the talk page) both preclude taking this to Third Opinion.

Meters --

I hope to be speaking with Katherine Maher -- or someone in the administrative offices of the Wikimedia Foundation -- on Monday. Accordingly, please provide me with following information immediately, as I hope to report this matter accurately:

1) What is your name, and what is your role at Wikipedia?

2) How would you propose that I discuss my article edits “politely with the editors” when I have already attempted to do so, and one of them (DMacks) ignored me, and the other (The Valeyard) publically libeled me?

3) You write, “...Your hands are far from clean in this.” Precisely, what do you mean by that?

4) You write, “Your edits were undone four times, by three different editors.” Please tell me their names.

5) You write, “I have not looked at the content in question yet.” Please explain why and how you can intervene in this matter without doing the appropriate research.

6) You write, “If you insist on raising the supposed abusive behaviour then the appropriate venue would be WP:ANI. I don't recommend it, and I don't think you will have any luck.” That is an extremely disturbing, and possibly actionable, comment. Please explain the latter part of that sentence.

--Bruce Kluger bruce@brucekluger.com Bruce Kluger (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My name is none of your business, and it is a violation of Wikipedia rules for you to ask me to identify myself. My role is as a volunteer, as are we all (and you have already been told this twice [1] and [2] ). I am not an administrator on Wikipedia, and that information is readily available to anyone who chooses to look [3], just as is the information that you are an unconfirmed editor who created your account four days ago [4] with 90 edits in total, all to Ga-ga or relating to your edits to that page [5].
Both editors have responded to your threads on their talk pages about the content, and User:TheValeyard correctly told you that any further content discussion should be continued on the article's talk page. And as I said on User:DMacks talk page [6], you were not ignored by him or her. The editor responded to you multiple times, and has not edited Wikipedia since your last post there. It is not appropriate to discuss your interactions with other editors on an article's talk page. Discuss the article content. That's why I said If you think there has been abusive behaviour then discuss it politely with the editors in question or take it to the appropriate venue. There has been no discussion of this issue. Accusing an editor of libel is a very serious claim, and not one to be made lightly. I see no libel in TheValeyard's post. I suggest that you read WP:NOLEGALTHREATS and redact that accusation immediately. TheValeyard responded to your question about the undo of your edit. If you are not pleased with the tone of the response then discuss it.
I mean that your behaviour is far from ideal. You ignored WP:BRD and continued to make controversial edits. That's edit warring. You've used the inflammatory headers "DMACKS -- WHY ARE YOU CONTINUING TO IGNORE ME?" and "ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR". You have directly accused an editor of libeling you, and now claim that my comments are possibly actionable. You have called an editor smug and condescending, and "arbitrary and abusive". You've made several threatening sounding comments: Please give me a contact number immediately for someone I can speak to about this. I write regular columns about the media for USA Today, and I would like to interview someone who is in a greater position of authority than you. I have written about Wikipedia before -- glowingly -- and yet this first experience in writing for the site has been a shocking and disheartening experience. Please know that whatever response you write to me will in all likelihood be used in whatever piece I decide to write, and will be cited as an on-the-record response to my complaint.; I am a national newspaper columnist who has often written about Wikipedia. I will be writing a piece about this experience, and intend to use whatever response you write here -- along with your Wikipedia name (Valeyard) and your self-description ("Timey-wimey, wibbly-wobbly") -- in whatever I choose to write.; I've now gone to The Wikipedia Foundation to lodge a complaint about you; I intend to pursue the matter further with the Wikimedia Foundation; this comment [7] where you asked another editor to contact you off wiki regarding DMacks and said I intend to pursue the matter with whoever he/she reports to.; I hope to be speaking with Katherine Maher -- or someone in the administrative offices of the Wikimedia Foundation -- on Monday. Accordingly, please provide me with following information immediately, as I hope to report this matter accurately.
You were undone twice by DMacks [8] and [9], once by User:Graham87 [10], and once by TheValeyard [11]. You were given an edit warring warning by for these edits by User:JJMC89 [12]. As to what their names are, even if I knew what they were, I would not be allowed to tell you.
I was not involved in the content dispute. From what I have seen on the talk pages the other editors have explained their edits and suggested how this can be dealt with. Now that a discussion has been opened on the article's talk page I may choose to look at the content and comment, or I may not. I was simply responding to a posting I saw on a user's talk page that is on my watch list.
What part isn't clear? "I don't think you will have any luck" means that I don't think an ANI report would result in any action against DMacks or TheValeyard. "I don't recommend it" means that I think I think an ANI action would be a bad idea. Admins will look at the actions of all of parties, including the one making the report, and I suspect that if anyone were to be blocked it would be you. How you can see that as possibly actionable I don't understand, but it appears to be another possible legal threat and you should redact it. Meters (talk) 06:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. Meters (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See c:COM:VP/C#Possible attack files. These five files are all personal harassment. Meters (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian. Your harrassing images were deleted. Please stop harrassing. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nas Daily[edit]

Hey just wondering how you're connec5ted to him as I as you're part of the book production team. IsraeliIdan (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zvikorn. I've worked with Nas over the past 15 months, helping him put the book together. As you can see from the link I'm posted, I'm listed as his co-author. He has a lot of fans around the world, and they're always asking about the book. So I figured it would be nice to put that info here.

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Bruce Kluger. 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 organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

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, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Kluger moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Bruce Kluger, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.

I would higly recommend not writing your autobiography here. Secondly, articles here need to summarize what reliable secondary sources have said about subjects. The current sources don't demonstrate notability (in the way Wikipedia uses the word).

– Thjarkur (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Bruce Kluger! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Basmul1 (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the warm welcome, Basmul1. It takes a little getting used to, but I really enjoy it. Stay safe!

--Bruce KlugerBruce Kluger (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bruce Kluger (November 3)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nightenbelle was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This article has too much WP:refbombing and the references do not establish notablity sufficiently because most are written by the subject or are primary sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bruce Kluger and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Bruce Kluger, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Nightenbelle (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About your draft[edit]

Hello, Bruce,

I saw your tagged draft and deleted it. Should you wish to restore it, please ask me or go to WP:REFUND and request that it be undeleted.

According to WP:Notability, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.. Should you or your work be covered by reliable sources, we might be able to create an article for you. But the fact that you are an published author or you have been interviewed on TV doesn't really matter for Wikipedia notability standards. It's not what you say about yourself but what reputable sources say about you that matters here due to standards about verifiability.

Should you have questions about Wikipedia policies, I encourage you to visit the Teahouse where new editors are welcome and you can count on a friendly response even if the answers aren't what you had hoped for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Liz. Thank you for your fast response. I understand your criteria about WP:Notability and verifiability. But that's not my problem at this moment. What I am currently very distressed about is the unkind and abusive letter that the previous editor, Nightenbelle, wrote to me. I'd written a rather detailed -- and very respectful -- challenge to his/her evaluation of my article; and in response I got a cruel and hurtful screed that called me names and unfairly mischaracterized my letter. That is why I requested my article be deleted. What Nightenbelle wrote about me -- and my letter to him/her -- was defamatory and potentially damaging to my career, given the public nature of Wikipedia. It was anything but the "friendly response" you describe. I don't want to go through any channels to report this; I just want my article gone, and any communication I had with Nightenbelle gone, too. This was an awful and hurtful experience. Is there any way to speak with a real person about this? Bruce Kluger (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bruce,

Yes, Nightenbelle's response was blunt. That can happen on Wikipedia and, in general, on the internet. Wikipedia is full of editors with all sorts of temperaments and so action usually isn't take on civility violations unless the content is racist, sexist, anti-semitic or ethnically insulting. Wikipedia is not utopia and we all experience bruising on occasion. On Wikipedia, we don't like words like "defamatory" because they imply legal action might be taken and any threats of legal action would require your account to be blocked until that is resolved. I'll try to answer your other questions:

I will ask Nightenbelle if he could delete this discussion from their talk page but the Wikipedia user talk pages are not indexed by Google and the chances that anyone would come across this discussion are infinitely small. Should you wish to disassociate yourself from your edits, you might think about changing your username which would remove your real name from any edits you have made.

Your article is deleted. It is only viewable to administrators and there aren't that many of us. But since it was deleted because you requested it, it can also be restored upon your request should you wish to work on it. As my message below states, writing your autobiography is strongly discouraged because it is impossible for you, or anyone, to be neutral about yourself. But, as you can see, this is such a common activity done by new editors that we have a standard message we post on editor's talk pages who try to attempt this. Usually the first thing a new editor does when they become active is write about themselves, their employers or their artwork, inventions or music.

All communication on Wikipedia is done on talk pages or through email if you have enabled that feature in your profile. As far as contacting anyone real, you might visit Wikimedia Resource Center and see if they have any answers for you. This is the English Wikipedia, run by volunteers, but Wikimedia is the actual parent organization that employs individuals to coordinate certain aspects of the hundreds of existing Wikimedia projects.

I hope that addresses some of your concerns. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Liz.

It meant -- and means -- a lot to me that you would take the time to answer my outreach so thoroughly and with such courtesy. Thank you for that.

One could argue that "blunt" is a word to describe a friend telling you that your newly upholstered couch is hideous, or a parent commenting that you've gained weight. To the contrary, I think what Nightenbelle engaged in was more along the lines of vindictive and bullying language (I am using both terms figuratively so as not imply any sort of legal action). Consequently, I remain very grateful to have had your sympathetic ear on the matter. I'm well aware of non-utopian nature of the internet; for some weird reason, I never expected it here. But thank you for hearing me out.

Thank you, too, for offering to ask Nightenbelle to delete our exchange. I'd made a similar request to Nightenbelle before you got in touch with me. You can read that exchange here. (Also, unexpectedly, someone named User:Cullen328 intervened on my behalf. I was similarly grateful for that support.)

Just so you know, I went into writing my article fully aware that Wikipedia discourages someone writing their autobiography; and therefore I tried hard to craft my article not in a self-laudatory way, but rather in a way that simply supported the other mentions of me or my work on Wikipedia. I fully accept your explanation that this is a common activity on Wikipedia that raises more problems than it's worth, and will likely never try again. This was supposed to be fun, but it turned into heartache, so I'll probably just go back to being a Wikipedia reader rather than the occasional contributor.

I see by your bio that you may be just across the river from me. If that's the case, stay safe. We've got a hell of a winter coming up.

Thank you again, Liz, for taking some of the sting out of an awful experience. You sound like a really nice person.

Bruce Kluger (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions; however, it appears you may have written a Wikipedia article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – please see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to or change an existing article about yourself, you are welcome to propose the changes by visiting the article's talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was the page I created deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss this with the deleting administrator. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Liz. Why didn't you respond to my letter above? Bruce Kluger (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An Appology[edit]

Mr. Kluger,

several months ago, you posted on my talk page, and I responded awfully to you multiple times. I wanted to apologize for that. Any message I was trying to send was obliterated by the uncivil tone I used that you did not deserve. Making you feel ashamed did not make Wikipedia a stronger encyclopedia, or encourage a user to provide useful contributions. I accused you of using Wikipedia to make yourself look better, but I was slamming you to make myself feel better as well, which is much worse and makes me a hypocrite and as well as a jerk. I apologize for my behavior, and for the length of time it has taken me to accept my own fault and the need to make amends. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nightenbelle,

Thank you for your very thoughtful message. No problem about the lapse in time since we last spoke. It's been an emotionally chaotic year for everyone, and we all sort through our thoughts differently. That you would even reach out at all was touching and a nice surprise. Wishing you the best. Stay safe.

--Bruce Kluger (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]