User talk:CrunchyDolphin

Jeremy Corbell Edit
Thanks for the edit, I didn't realize that, and this makes the data better! DuncanGT (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Looks like that line item has been removed, do you know anything about this? DuncanGT (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, CrunchyDolphin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Jeremy Corbell does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! jps (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * How, specifically, is changing "ufologist" to "investigate journalist" against the neutral point of view rules and guidelines? It is actually more accurate and, per the rules, "independent sources" such as NewsNation have labeled Corbell as an "investigate journalist" and "filmmaker" covering the subject of UAP. CrunchyDolphin (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As I've sad below, NewsNation is clearly not independent of him. And UFOs are an important part of their business model. Doug Weller  talk 08:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * User DuncanGT originally agreed with me that my edit was a good and accurate change. I have provided independent sources backing up my edit as well.
 * The rebuttal I received was a link to this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#UFOlogy_promoter_BLPs):
 * "Jeremy Corbell works for newsnationnow, of course they call him an investigative journalist, but we shouldn't. Someone needs to revert at that article. I see a couple of the other SPAs have also been blocked.. I see JoJo Anthrax has given out some CT alerts. Let me know if I can help more as an Admin. I read the REDDIT page." Doug Weller
 * Not only is this inaccurate, as Corbell does not have an official affiliation with newsnation, it ignores other sources that call Corbell the same thing such as Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/video/6344773221112
 * I demand a serious and legitimate rebuttal as to why this is problematic to have on Corbell's page, if one exists. CrunchyDolphin (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are using a tighter definition of work than I do. I consider writing for Newsnation to be work; He not only writes for them, they use him on their official YouTube channel, eg here they are talking about him. Whatever you call it, he has a very close relationship with them and gets paid by them. Doug Weller  talk 08:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * DuncanGT is an extremely inexperienced editor. Doug Weller  talk 08:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC) CrunchyDolphin (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

You were given a warning about edit warring. You made another revert after that warning. The consequence should hardly be a surprise. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * So what about the people "warring" back with zero justfucation or legitimate reasoning? Were they banned as well? I provided a legitimate independent source backing up my edits but I'm banned for "warring"?
 * Surely you can see the nuance of this situation, it's not warring when I'm providing simple factual career information about someone with sources as well. Thanks. CrunchyDolphin (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. You have not adequately addressed the reason for your block.

Please see our policy on edit warring. In the event of a content dispute, editors are required to stop reverting, discuss, and seek consensus among editors on the relevant talk page. If discussions reach an impasse, editors can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

Points to ponder:
 * Edit warring is wrong even if one is right.
 * Any arguments in favor of one's preferred version should be made on the relevant talk page and not in an unblock appeal.
 * Calling attention to the faults of others is never a successful strategy; one must address one's own behavior.

To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute. Please tell us, in your own words, what it all means. Thanks,. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * ...Other independent sources have covered before: https://www.forbes.com/sites/risasarachan/2023/02/07/cadence13-weaponized-podcast-explores-the-unknown-with-investigative-reporters-jeremy-corbell-and-george-knapp/... Not an independent reliable source. See WP:FORBESCON. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)