User talk:Devinsteerforth

Welcome!
Hello, Devinsteerforth, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Matthew Shepard, seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see: If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can write   below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia: I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Fiddle  Faddle  21:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Policy on neutral point of view
 * Guideline on spam
 * Guideline on external links
 * Guideline on conflict of interest
 * FAQ for Organizations
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and how to develop articles
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * Article wizard for creating new articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Again, as I mentioned below, I would like to know what appears to be biased or promotional, as my sources were accurately cited and removed what I in turn found to be bias from unreliable articles which attempt to damage the reputation of the book in question with inaccurate information. I will gladly adhere to Wikipedia's standards of neutrality, but I would like to also know how my requested changes violated that neutrality and how I may suggest accurate information without being accused of such bias. Thanks. DevinDarkness (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Slander is a word with a specific legal meaning, and you're sailing perilously close to the wind per this policy. If you're interested in working to improve any article, the best approach when you find your edits reverted is to open a discussion on the talk page of the article in question. If you do that, please avoid using words with legal connotations. Rivertorch (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In that case, I will rephrase, as you see above. As the word is both legal and linguistic, I will say instead that the articles which the previous poster uses to allegedly summarize the book instead make false statements which are damaging to the reputation of the book, the author, and the company which is also my employer, in the interest of disclosure, but which can also be easily disproven (something which I am attempting to do). Please advise to me how I can attempt to correct the false and damaging statements which are made here. Thank you. DevinDarkness (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As I said above, questions about content should be raised on the talk page of the article in question. Rivertorch (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If part of my edit to a page is credible, and part is not, will the whole edit be rejected, or will only the part which is not credible be removed?DevinDarkness (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * What is most likely to happen is that the entire edit is reverted. You are at liberty to remake the parts that are credible. What probably ought to happen but is unlikely is that only parts of the edit are reverted.
 * You need to be aware that there is a finite tolerance on either side of the reversions for multiple reversions. WP:3RR is used impartially to sanction any editor who transgresses. Fiddle   Faddle  16:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Will take some time to properly formulate my suggestions. DevinDarkness (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014
Hello, I'm Timtrent. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Matthew Shepard because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. ''It appears very much that from your user name you are advertising your own publishing house. Please cease and desist.'' Fiddle   Faddle  21:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

MY RESPONSE: Hello. I will gladly change my user name if that is preferred, but I need a username which will be appropriate; what should I use? I am also hoping to remove bias from the aforementioned article; as you can probably see, many of the citations which allege to cite the material shared in this book are actually from a derogatory review which has been disputed repeatedly. Thus, my supervisor has asked me to provide more concrete evidence. In order to determine which of these you find biased, could you share with me that information, or should I submit each as a separate change request? As you could see from the evidence I provide, the material is accurate and well-documented and challenges what appears to be biased false and damaging information on the page. Please advise. DevinDarkness (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You are adding spam links to your own organisation's commercial material. It is not appropriate. Commercial organisatuons may not bend nor seek to bend Wikipedia to their will. Fiddle   Faddle  23:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The links I am adding are not "spam"; they are in fact legitimate sources, the citations of which lead directly to the source material which proves the information is accurate. Can you please provide a more specific reference to the material which has been considered "spam" or which has violated Wikipedia's regulations? I will gladly also submit my references to a source which can verify them, if you would like me to do so and can direct me to such an entity. Thank you. DevinDarkness (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The links you've added are to (1) the book's page on the website of its publisher and (2) a page at amazon.com. The first is not an independent secondary source and fails to meet the guideline for reliable sources for the content you're using it to support. The second is not a reliable source, period. The first source also is promotional in nature, and a link to it from any Wikipedia article would indeed look very much like spam, even if the link wasn't added for promotional purposes. Again, the place to discuss specifics about the content of the article is at the article's talk page, but I'd recommend you read Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest before you start a discussion there. Rivertorch (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should ask a more direct question: if part of my edit is credible, and part is not, will the whole thing be rejected? DevinDarkness (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Take it to the talk page of the article in question. Fiddle   Faddle  14:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Devinsteerforth. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Matthew Shepard, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Fiddle  Faddle  21:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

We have a policy of not making legal threats - WP:NLT refers
In this version of this page you refer to 'slander' thus:

"As you could see from the evidence I provide, the material is accurate and well-documented and challenges what appears to be biased slander on the page."

There are two points to make to you here:


 * 1) You are technically incorrect. Were it to be in some manner defamatory it would be a libel that had been uttered. Slander is for the spoken word, libel is for the written word.
 * 2) Accusations along the lines you make are often the precursor to a legal threat. Indeed they may be considered to be a legal threat by some parties anyway.

I note that the comment on this page has been quietly refactored, but wish you to be aware that Wikipedia loses nothing. Every prior revision is available, even if the entire page has been deleted, except in very particular circumstances.

If you have a purpose here other than being a single purpose account instructed by your supervisor to promote your employer and its products, something that calls your status here into question anyway, you will be well advised to learn the policies and guidelines and stay well within them.

Wikipedians do not take kindly to even the hint of a legal threat, Fiddle   Faddle  14:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification. I was not aware that slander was here in reference to the legal term, and had attempted, albeit erroneously, to use it in a purely literal or literary sense. I changed it in attempt to correct my mistake, rather than to hide any evidence. Moreover, It was not "quietly" altered; I mentioned in my comment that I had revised my query, with the implication that I was correcting a mistake about which I had not previously known. I do not wish to invoke any legal action, threat, or suggestion, but instead wished to state that the material in question was biased and to understand the rejection of my attempt to correct the bias by providing alternative information. Because a citation which claimed to share information directly from the book instead links to a fallacious media source, I attempted to correct it so that it referenced the book, or at least mentioned that the comments were biased. I am here at the request of my supervisor, but am also providing information which seems no less credible than the sources which are already used on the page, so I, in my query to understand what appeared to be bias against this source, absentmindedly overlooked the legal interpretation of the word. I thank you for this clarification again, though, and hope that my acceptance of it and my comments here will suffice to end the peripheral exchange about the erroneous use of one word. DevinDarkness (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Additionally, I should mention that I do not intend to "promote [my] employer and its products", but instead wish to provide factual and well-documented material which I have studied moderately over the past six years and extensively over the past year that I have been involved with this publication, thereby enriching a community of information in a specific topic where much of the most publicized information has been released under the guidance of an organization which has a direct stake in the information which has been available and the facts which contradict their narrative. I realize the difficulty of sharing this information without appearing as someone promoting a product, which is why I hope to use material which does not necessarily suggest a reader buy a book. That said, it is difficult to discuss a book without referencing the book itself, so I wish to ask: when discussing the plot or summary of a book, is it acceptable to cite pages of the book itself, or are Wikipedia users with an apparent stake in the book discouraged from such? DevinDarkness (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The scenario you depict shows a prima facie conflict of interest. You work for the publisher. You have been involved in the research and the publication. You wish to make edits reflecting that research. Thus there is a problem, and this problem obtains whether your research is correct or incorrect. I make no remarks in this discussion about process about the various positions taken in the book
 * The way of handling this is to use the article's talk page to propose your edits, using Requested edit at the head of a section detailing the edit you would make were you not conflicted. This requests that others make the edit. This is a professional and proper manner to handle conflicts of interest.
 * You face the same problem that all edits to any article face. Wikipedia, for good or for ill, is based upon the consensus of editors. Paradoxically it is not a democracy. Many editors fall at this hurdle, not understanding that what they know as the truth is not accepted by the consensus of the editors who happen, at that moment, to be monitoring the article. See also WP:TRUTH where you will see that we value cited facts above truth. This is because Wikipedia is not a news medium, but is an encyclopaedia
 * At risk of making this too long, thus rendering it unread or unreadable, please may I ask that you continue reading.
 * The book, actually any book, is not, usually, considered to be a reliable source, the more so when its tone, or its intent, or something about it appears to be journalistic, and even more so if the journalism appears tabloid inspired. With a book of this nature, again ignoring completely whether the book is correct or incorrect, Wikipedia may only report the comments in reliable sources about the book itself.
 * That leads me to a further issue
 * This book may, in is own right, be notable. I am not saying that it is. I have no opinion. I am saying that it is conceivable that it may be. If it is then it is highly likely, but not certain, that Wikipedians will create an article on the book. You should absolutely not number yourself among those Wikipedians because of your conflicted status, but you may request its creation and may request edits within it.
 * Even if there is an article about the book, it may not, itself, be used to reference itself. That sentence needs you to read it again and digest it. All the article can do is to state the premise of the book and deal with reviews and critiques of the book in reliable sources.
 * You are probably aware that young Mr Shepard is the poster child for LGBT hate crime. This status will continue whether this was or was not a hate crime. We are, and we will remain, in the folklore about the young gentleman and his death, and we must recognise the fact that his murder led to legislation against LGBT hate crimes in the USA. People hold views that will not shift, even if the article on his murder shows, from time to time, or permanently, a different rationale for his death. The probability of the views promoted in the book prevailing in the article are, at best, unlikely.
 * Now, let's be clear. Controversy is news and news sells books. So we come right back to the start of this. An employee of the publisher may request edits, may request articles, but must not participate further than arguing for those requests. However, beware WP:SOAP and know when to retreat.
 * A long treatise, for which I make no apology. I hope you find it of some use. Fiddle   Faddle  15:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you; that request, that I suggest edits rather than attempting to make them myself, is very helpful. I will do so.
 * I do not intend that the book be used as primary source material for the findings, but rather that it be used as reference for the summary of its own plot, rather than a biased review article which presents canards (i.e. the misinformed belief that the book denies Matt Shepard's LGBT status was involved in the case; in fact, it recognizes this, but also asserts that drugs were involved and may have been a primary motive). For factual information, I understand and agree with the value of peer-reviewed sources; for summation of a book's contents, I feel the book should be considered a more credible source than media interpretations.
 * I am well aware of Shepard's status as an LGBT icon, as is the author. That is the primary concern we have with the article; his book agrees with that, but posits that the case is infinitely more complicated. It presents a complete, rather than oversimplified and iconic, view of Matt; the article wrongly depicts the book as something other than what the book's content actually states. I now understand that I can present this to the unbiased community as a suggestion rather than a personal edit, and I can hope that the preexisting biases the media has propagated do not conflict with the community's desire for truth and accuracy of information so that the article can present the factual summation of information, rather than defamatory speech which inaccurately depicts what is alleged in the book. Once more, thank you for taking the time to provide a detailed and complete explanation of this situation and the most logical resolution on my part. I will determine the best and most detached response to share on the Matthew Shepard talk page so as to suggest that a person who has read the book and will take the time to examine the sources can correct the bias.
 * As one final note, I wish to point out that the nondemocratic endeavour of creating and maintaining an encyclopaedia is not paradoxical; in fact, it is necessary. The unfortunate and paradoxical aspect is that which you reveal in the paragraph in which you suggest that "[t]he probability of the views promoted in the book prevailing in the article are, at best, unlikely"; because the section in question summarises the book, it should necessarily contain "the views promoted in the book"; however, it presents only a misinformed view of these. That is my only intention: to remove the misinformation and share the facts in an indisputably objective manner, the draft of which I will send through the channels you have suggested. DevinDarkness (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Wishing to give you the wherewithal to put your case as well as you are able, it may be that today, even this year, you may not succeed. You depend 100% on reviews of the book in reliable sources. Once one of those appears then there is a citable source for the views you have spent some time researching.
 * The problem you face at present is that of Wikipedia allowing original research to enter the article as a putative fact. The book itself is most assuredly original research, but does not benefit from peer review, as it would were in in academe, for example. Thus your and the author's research is difficult to include at best, even if it has a hardback cover and is in all the best libraries. Fiddle   Faddle  16:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Am well aware of the nature of credible and biased sources, as well as the danger of crowdsourced encyclopaedic content. Thank you for your input; I will keep in mind that Wikipedia editors are subject to bias and misinformation and may use articles as factual even when they are misinformed, and will obviously step down if they refuse to accept my suggestions or evidence. I also do not, as I said above, intend to use the book as a primary source for assertion of fact; I plan to peruse any records which are publicly available to support the information so that I will not "depend 100% on reviews" for this edit suggestion. However, per this suggestion you provide, I will also find citable review sources which present a more accurate summation of the book and are not influenced by personal agenda (as I am certain you, as an editor for Wikipedia, are aware exist in abundance in the mass media). The author's research, by contrast, would in part be easy to include, as it comes from court documents and police reports rather than appearing only in his book (as is the nature of research-based nonfiction). Again, my thanks for the suggestions. DevinDarkness (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You need to look at Wikipedia's view on (eg) court documents. You may wish to ask a question about their use on Wikipedia at Reliable sources/Noticeboard to determine how useful they are as sources. I am unsure of the outcome of previous discussions, but I sense that they may be considered to be primary sources and thus for use with extreme caution. Fiddle   Faddle  16:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I've set up a discussion there and invite you both to monitor and join in with it. Fiddle   Faddle  09:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The initial answer to my general question suggests that court documents (etc) are primary sources. I commend this discussion to you. With it you will be better able to assess what you wish to do. Fiddle   Faddle  12:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

A further piece of advice
Now that you are starting to understand how WIkipedia works when an editor is conflicted, may I suggest that you state clearly on your user page, not your talk page, that you are conflicted, and how. This will avoid vicarious accusations of conflict of interest and will allow you a chance to breathe. It would be wise to state that (in your own words) now that you have learnt how to request edits, you will use that process on any and all articles where you perceive that a conflict of interest exists.

This is advice, to be accepted or rejected with a good heart and after thought in either case. Fiddle  Faddle  16:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)