User talk:Accusationremoval

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page James David Christie, have removed content without a good reason to do so. Content on Wikipedia should not be removed just because you disagree with it or because you think it's wrong, unless the claim is not verifiable. Instead, you should consider expanding the article with noteworthy and verifiable information of your own, citing reliable sources when you do so. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! DBaK (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Thank you for your response.  The president of Holy Cross refused to hire an investigator because the accusation was purely designed for the defamation of James David Christie.  The damage has been done.  I will continue to try to properly request that the second sentence of a world renowned man’s Wikipedia page doesn’t go straight into an unproven accusation of sexual misconduct.  It’s pretty obviously designed for defamation.  I have learned that 3 organists started this accusation against Christie.  The Holy Cross President refused to hire an investigator even though fellow college professors insisted.  I thought Wikipedia wanted a living biography to be handled professionally. 108.49.240.40 (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * James David Christie’s living biography is not professional. The second sentence talks of an unproven accusation of sexual misconduct.  Is that what Mr. Christie, a world renowned artist is most known for?  Put the accusations in but not the second sentence.  Apparently three Worcester, MA area organist put this story together to accuse him in order to defame Mr.Christie. It worked.  Now they have more organ jobs for themselves.  Can we now remove the second sentence from Wikipedia?  I thought living biographies were to be handled delicately. Accusationremoval (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Tricky! Thank you for the civilized response. It raises a number of issues and unfortunately I am up against it for time right now so I don't know when I will be able to respond properly. I'm racking my brains to try and think of a way forward. Here are a few quick points, but it is honestly more of an emergency response than a properly settled and fettled answer:
 * Your username ... maybe it is just me but it could seem to be a problem as it seems to scream "confrontation". There's no rule (that I know of) against being a Single-purpose account but if this is you, and you have this username, it may make your life here more difficult than if you had called the account InterestedOrganist or ThirtyTwoFeet or whatever. I think it is the username that initially drew my attention and concern. But you should maybe take a look at Single-purpose account anyway.
 * If you are Christie himself, or a friend, colleague, family member etc, then you have a Conflict of Interest (COI) which is a major issue for editing here, and you are required to declare your COI. Please have a look at Conflict of interest and at the quite helpful Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.
 * It's difficult for me, here, to get into the specifics of your concern. I reverted you because on the face of it your removal of content, without an Edit summary, and with a troubling username, was enough of a trigger to revert. However ...
 * The best place to discuss this is probably on Talk:James David Christie, the article's Talk page. We have a nice thing called BRD ... not a policy but an idea; you were Bold, I Reverted, now you need to Discuss ... you could start a topic on that Talk page and try to build a consensus for the change you would like. I think this is probably the most obvious/urgent thing to do. Whatever you do, don't issue a legal threat – bad idea round here!
 * Wikipedia has a lot of concern about Biographies of living persons and there's a noticeboard for people to raise issues. I don't think I have ever used it and I would approach it with caution in case it had an unintended result for you, but I think it is right that you are aware that it is there.
 * I hope this is all some little help. If I can think of or find someone who I think can advise you more authoritatively than me, I will let you know.
 * With best wishes, DBaK (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Addenda
Sorry, I have been thinking a bit more and I wanted to add:
 * Take your time. The mention of misconduct allegations has been in the article body since 24 August 2018 and in the lead since 28 August 2018. After almost six years I don't think it matters so much if you take a few days or weeks to get your strategy right if you want to change it.
 * You might want to take a look at Righting great wrongs which talks about some of the issues around coming here to Put Something Right ... it may be how some successful editors started but I think I have seen more examples of people who end up angry and frustrated and can crash and burn, which is sad. Then if it really goes pear-shaped they say "well you will be hearing from my solicitors about this libel" and then it's goodbye and we usually do not hear from them again.
 * If you have time, maybe look around a bit, observe how the normal editing process goes in some topic that you know about but are not passionate about, watch the to-and-fro, see how it develops. You can see that people are mostly reasonable and respectful, though at WP:LAME (bring strong drink and a cushion) you can also see extreme cases of bees in bonnets, many of which are just alarming. And of course in music you can find examples of people who have been accused of things as well as plenty who have not. I will try and think of some articles I would recommend.
 * The Teahouse can also be good for a new editor and you might pick up some expert help there, though again I would proceed with caution because of the risk of unintended consequences.

I will stop bugging you now! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)