User talk:Bazzil1

Content you added
Hello! You added generally the same section to many different Wikipedia articles shortly after I had removed a bunch of BLP policy-violating sections that you added to the same articles. After reading through them, as well as the sections you previously added, it is evident you are using more than the sources cited to derive the information you add. Thus, I want to ask if you have a conflict of interest in relation to the pages you edit, or the Sackler Family/Foundation. If so, I will request you not edit those articles about that subject. Vermont (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: Stepehn Houston
Wikipedia doesn't care that much about what's in the news at the moment. Also see your message above, which says things far better than I could. Graham 87 15:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , I’m thinking of removing most of the sections or shortening them down to a sentence each. Thoughts? Vermont (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, sounds reasonable to me. You seem to have a better handle on this issue than I do. Graham 87 01:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi apologies if this is duplicated response. Just to confirm that I have no conflicts or competing interests with Sacklers or any of the people or places edited. I have a concerned citizens interest in documenting the patterns of Sackler philanthropy. I understand that Wikipedia is not concerned with what is in the news, and also that it is not a tool for protest, but Sackler endowments are huge global enterprise, and there has been complete reevaluation in past 18 months, seems reasonable that wikpedia reflects this.
 * It only is reasonable for Wikipedia to reflect this if exactly what you want to say is stated in multiple secondary, indepdendent, reliable sources, which doesn't seem to be the case for a significant portion of your writing. Vermont (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I take your point completely which is why I have removed much of what I wrote. Now all that is posted are the dates of lectures, with a citation to show where each lecture occurred. These lectures were uploaded to youtube by the universities themselves, which is why I thought the youtube citations were uncontroversial. I have removed everything else there is now no commentary, except on the Raymond Sackler entry. Here there was already a paragraph about the controversy which was cited to the New Yorker and Guardian, I just moved that up to the first section. Very happy to provide further citations if you wish for that entry? New York Times, New England Journal of Medicine, BBC website could all be put in there. But not sure that just listing dates of lectures needs those citations? thank you again for your advice.

Bazzil1 (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Vermont I have tried to introduce the citations your requested but am being blocked I have pasted the section below and hope you will consider it

Controversy
There are growing concerns that the Sackler family's extensive worldwide philanthropy was based on profits acquired from the misselling of opiates which triggered the opioid crisis in North America. ,, , , , , , . This philanthropy has been described as Reputation Laundering.

Bazzil1 (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(PS I should have said that is for the Raymond Sackler entry. You can see from the Talk section on that site that other Wikipedia users also feel that the entry as it stands is far too hagiographic, considering recent developments).

PPS would you be able to remove the automatic filter? I have complied with everything you have suggested, usually within a very short time. Bazzil1 (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , it's a sock filter. Not exactly sure why you're being caught in it; I'm presently unable to view filter details.
 * Anyways, I'm in opposition to what you propose above. The sources, quite simply, don't say that. They're (surprisingly) more neutral than the content you wish to add. There is a controversy that should be included (thanks for the sources; they're all very useful) but it needs to be added in a neutral way. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyways, I'm in opposition to what you propose above. The sources, quite simply, don't say that. They're (surprisingly) more neutral than the content you wish to add. There is a controversy that should be included (thanks for the sources; they're all very useful) but it needs to be added in a neutral way. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Fair enough. (v impressed with wikipedia editing systems btw. had no idea that this is all going on behind the scenes...) Bazzil1 (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)