User talk:DCsghost

Welcome!
Hello, DCsghost, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Hughesdarren (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hempton
Hi, I padded out the reference with more details on the Hempton article, Thanks for your addition and sorry to undo it but it was easier for me to start back from scratch then reinsert your work, Hughesdarren (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

________

No problem. Looks good. I new to wikipedia. Like really new. I was looking for a "reply button" to get back to you! I think i might be blocked from editing judging by the notice i just received from Doug Weller. Hopefully I won't get into more trouble for asking this but what actions can I take if I feel I have been a victim of bullying from high level admins? I did everything (or so i thought) to avoid "edit waring", including kindly asking for discussion on the talk page of the article, but there was zero respect given to that and they went in one after the other in succession, reverting my 'reversions' (sorry I don't have the wiki lingo down yet)now it appears i might be blocked.

Take a look at what went down. They keep reverting to an edit that names the wrong CEO of a publicly traded company. I provided a link to SEC filings which clearly shows the edit is wrong, but it appears they don’t care about accurate information. I am not asking you to do anything i am just asking if you could help explain to me if this is really how wikipedia works and how admin editors can get away with this? DCsghost (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)DCsghost


 * OK, I've had a look through the logs and read the talk page comments by everyone involved. As far as I can tell the page has been subjected to alot of edit warring over the past few years, particularly by those who have a personal or professional connection with the subject. Generally speaking most of the comments by all the users have had a extremely belligerent tone. Unfortunately you have chosen a contentious topic to start with and there seems to be a great deal of hubris attached to it. I would suggest that you give it a couple if days then add small ammounts of referenced text one piece at a time then you only have to discuss small edits rather than that larger ones. Most importantly though is when you do discuss it use a more cooperative and less accusatory attitude. If you read the links at the top of this page they should give some oversight on what is important when editing. Best of luck Hughesdarren (talk) 06:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You aren't being bullied, but if you really want to complain, go to WP:ANI but beware of WP:Boomerang. Why not just use the article talk page? Doug Weller  talk 09:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Doug, I assume you were leaving the message above for DCsghost. DCsghost did attempt to use the article talk page but has not understood the history of the article or the talk page process very well and also didn't read the links you provided. Coupled with a combative attitude and a sense of persecution, it all went downhill from there. I'm assuming good faith on DCsghosts part (given the Hempton edit was legitimate) and hoping he may take my advice. Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hughesdarren thanks, I really appreciate your input here and hope you can stick around to watch how the editors on this article behave.

I am actually very familiar with the history of this article as well as dozens of others I have watched over the years. This is one of the reasons I decided to start editing to make Wikipedia better.

Whether or not the page has previously been the subject of edit warring, hubris, COIs (on both sides), etc, should have no bearing whatsoever in the removal of clearly inaccurate information (particularly on a BLP) backed by SEC sources that nobody is even contesting (eg. Ermanno Santilli is not the CEO of Magnegas corporation) But unfortunately I believe this event proves that it does matter and that needs to change.

If this goes to arbitration will David Eppstein or Jzg or Doug Weller argue that Ermanno Santilli is the CEO of MagneGas? Obviously not so why do they insist (in Doug Weller’s case, let it go on an article he has monitored and edited for years) on having false information on a BLP?

Because anyone who deletes indisputably inaccurate information on BLP simply absolutely must be one of “Santilli and his acolytes”(-jgz) or “black evader” (-David) and needs to instantly be reverted without any regard to facts or the principles of Wikipedia, and that is what is improves Wikipedia? That is in my opinion unfortunately about the gist of it and I am not going to stand for it.

I will heed your advice “add small amounts of referenced text one piece at a time then you only have to discuss small edits” -- but recall that is exactly what I did and my edits were instantly shut down and my requests for discussion on the articles talk page ignored. Just look at Doug Weller comment to me above where he asks me why I don’t just “take it to the talk page”, after explaining to him that is exactly what I did and how David Eppstein disregarded the request. Is there a Wiki term for Gaslighting ?

I am acting in good faith. Are they? Please watch over me as I am all alone here. The editors on this article have been together for many years in what might be described as a pack. Thanks DCsghost (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)DCsghost
 * Doug thank you for the warning about WP:Boomerang but I am not too concerned that deleting indisputably inaccurate information from a BLP will come back to “get me”.  Since you have a been an editor on this article for 9 years, can I ask why you don’t go in a remove the inaccurate information that I am bringing to your attention? I have already pointed out how the article names Ermanno Santilli as the CEO of Magnegas which is just flat out wrong.
 * Then there is this part (which David Eppstein and JrZ refuse to allow be removed) that states: “due to their holdings of preferred stock, "the Santilli Family has the ability to significantly influence all matters requiring approval by stockholders of our company." His wife Carla is a director.”
 * This is also false. According to SEC filings, all the controlling Series A Preferred Stock were repurchased by the company on Nov 2nd 2018 so the Santilli family no longer has any control and Carla resigned as director in June 2018.
 * With precedent now established by all current editors that information about MangeGas corporation is relevant to this BLP article, I think accurate information about that publicly traded company should be presented.
 * So for the record, you are now aware that inaccurate financial information about a publicly traded company is on a Wikipedia BLP article you monitor and edit and as of the moment, have not gone in and improved the article. Please know I am not saying you are obligated to do anything here, only that (as of the moment) you have not done anything. Recall WP:Boomerrang.  I will even add my request that you correct the inaccurate information since my request to JrZ went ignored. Again, just my suggestion.


 * I could take this over to the article talk page, but will you join me in the discussion? It would be great if you could since you've been on this article for 9 years. Thanks! DCsghost (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)DCsghost

December 2018
Your recent editing history at Ruggero Santilli shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 22:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (Help!) 00:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I've revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)