User talk:GrammarDamner/Archives/2019/May

Misleading editing summaries
If you keep using your misleading "grammar" edit summaries, I will report you at WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have responded to you in the talk section of the article in question, where you highlighted your own edits and talked about something I supposedly did. GrammarDamner (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Health and appearance of Michael Jackson; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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.''This, this, and this is "slow-motion edit warring". You are repeatedly re-inserting the same text. Per WP:BRD, you should not re-insert it until you have consensus to do so on the talk page. The first edit summary "clarification" isn't as good as the third summary "adding info about use of cream". The third summary is clear, so that's good. Finally, the content you're adding is not supported by the source you are citing. The source does not say he "purchased" it, it doesn't say he "used" it (in fact, it says tox reports came back negative for the cream), it doesn't say the quantities found were "large", and it doesn't describe the medicine as "skin bleaching cream". So, while one of the edit summaries is good, you're slow-motion edit-warring inaccurate information into an article, and that's bad. Please self revert and seek consensus on the talk page. Thank you.'' Leviv&thinsp;ich 22:05, 3 May 2019 (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.


 * @ Leviv&thinsp;ich, you're right, I should be utilizing the talk page to resolve disputes, and I will certainly start doing so with this one. I must say that I find it incredibly frustrating that while Flyer22 Reborn is also simply undoing my edits, I'm the only one who gets warned about edit warring. I also find it just a little concerning that I get "scolded" (to say the least) any time my edit summaries are less than perfect, but Flyer22 Reborn gets a pass for highlighting edits that weren't mine and pointing fingers at me. Anyway, what is the proper procedure for seeking consensus on something? Should I simply start a new discussion on the talk page? Or is there a special way to format it to make sure a good number of editors see it? I have this funny feeling that about 3 editors will weigh in, and I'll be told that the "consensus" is against me. Sorry if I sound negative/cynical. I hope I haven't bummed you out, and I still enjoy being a part of Wikipedia. Thanks again for all your help! GrammarDamner (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Flyer doesn't get an edit warring notice because she's not edit warring. It's all about the BRD: bold, revert, discuss. You made a bold addition, which another editor reverted (I think Flyer was highlighting where she reverted your edits, that's what her diffs showed). At that point, you're supposed to discuss and achieve consensus for your bold edit before reinstating it. Usually you start a thread on the talk page and say you think "[text]" should be included, cited to [source], and this is why... Yes, other editors will chime in and join the discussion, and that's how everyone finds out where consensus lies. I think most of the time, discussion results in consensus one way or the other, or for some compromise.
 * I'm not scolding you for less than perfect edit summaries, but having accurate edit summaries matters. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit runs on trust. One of the points of an edit summary is to say to your colleagues, "Hey! This is what I'm doing here! Come revert it if you don't like it." So editors have to be able to trust that when an edit summary says "grammar" or "clarification", it's just changing the grammar, not adding new content. This was not a clarification, it added new content. And, I wouldn't advise taking this edit to the talk page, because the source you provide doesn't support "purchased", "used", "large" or "bleach". There are also WP:DUE issues, like whether it's important how many tubes of medical cream he had. I wouldn't be surprised if consensus was against adding that edit, but on the other hand, a discussion of the sources and the topics may lead to consensus for a compromise. But there's one "right" way to do it, and that's to follow BRD, so you should self-revert your bold addition, and then start the discussion on the talk page. I would highly recommend either finding more sources for the information you're trying to add, and/or rewording the text you propose be added to more closer match what the sources say. Leviv&thinsp;ich 04:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not scolding you for less than perfect edit summaries, but having accurate edit summaries matters. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit runs on trust. One of the points of an edit summary is to say to your colleagues, "Hey! This is what I'm doing here! Come revert it if you don't like it." So editors have to be able to trust that when an edit summary says "grammar" or "clarification", it's just changing the grammar, not adding new content. This was not a clarification, it added new content. And, I wouldn't advise taking this edit to the talk page, because the source you provide doesn't support "purchased", "used", "large" or "bleach". There are also WP:DUE issues, like whether it's important how many tubes of medical cream he had. I wouldn't be surprised if consensus was against adding that edit, but on the other hand, a discussion of the sources and the topics may lead to consensus for a compromise. But there's one "right" way to do it, and that's to follow BRD, so you should self-revert your bold addition, and then start the discussion on the talk page. I would highly recommend either finding more sources for the information you're trying to add, and/or rewording the text you propose be added to more closer match what the sources say. Leviv&thinsp;ich 04:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not just about edit warring. It's about you, GrammarDamner, WP:Editorializing/adding things the sources do not state. The sources (at least the first academic source) do not state that his lightened skin was due to skin bleaching. It's more of a speculative matter. Even one of the sources stating the "lightened skin was due to skin bleaching" aspect as fact doesn't negate that it's a speculative matter. That is why I reverted you here, for example. The source you added states, "detectives found 19 tubes of hydroquinone and 18 tubes of Benoquin, both of which are commonly used in the treatment of a skin condition Jackson had called vitiligo." Notice that the source states that those products are commonly used to treat vitiligo. Jackson having used them doesn't mean that they were the sole cause of his light skin. That they helped lighten his skin is very likely (you know, since that's what those products are supposed to do), and I believe they helped lighten his skin and are the main reason he was as light as he was and evenly so, but your source doesn't state that they helped lighten his skin. And although the source clearly indicates that he used the products, it, like Levivich (Leviv) noted, doesn't state that he did. Besides that, the Benoquin aspect is already covered in the "Skin color" section. Per WP:Lead, the lead is for summarizing. It's not for going into detail like that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

So regarding this? You need to stop adding it, per what Levivich and I stated above. If you add it again, I will indeed take you to an appropriate noticeboard. This is your last warning. I'm not going to debate you on something that per our WP:Verifiability and WP:Synthesis policies, you shouldn't be doing. This is more than just a content dispute, which is why I'd rather report you at WP:ANI than at the WP:Original research noticeboard. I'm not going to waste editors' time starting a WP:RfC on this. But I thank Leviv for taking the time to explain the above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * @Flyer22 Reborn, I don't know if you're trying to make this personal, but let me start by saying that I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, and I appreciate you taking the time to help me. Also, you are right. The source I cited only stated where the skin bleaching cream was found. It's certainly possible that Michael Jackson never purchased the skin bleaching cream, and it's certainly possible that Michael Jackson never used the skin bleaching cream. I will not add that information to the article again. I'm not trying to deny that I've made mistakes with my edit summaries in the past, but please be a little more careful about how you describe others' edits. When I clicked on the first edit you highlighted and saw all those changes highlighted in yellow under my username on April 29th, my initial reaction was, "OMG, did I really make that mistake just a few days ago?" But then I saw that I had simply been misrepresented by someone else. I'm not going to issue a demand or tell you to "stop it", but I will kindly request that you please not do that again. If you're going to criticize somebody, the least you can do is get your facts straight. And I do sincerely apologize for my mistakes. Once again, @Flyer22 Reborn and @ Leviv&thinsp;ich, thank you both for taking the time to help me, I hope I haven't been too much of a nuisance, and keep up the good work! GrammarDamner (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There was no misrepresenting you. Levivich explained the matter to you above: "I think Flyer was highlighting where she reverted your edits, that's what her diffs showed." That is correct. This and this link that I used on the article's talk page clearly shows me reverting your edits. Yes, that second link shows me reverting a bot as well, but I'm clearly reverting your changes in that link. My facts are straight. I can see why the second diff confused you, but that first diff should not have confused you if it did. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * As for "it's certainly possible that Michael Jackson never used the skin bleaching cream," I'm not stating that. After all, the Wikipedia article does state that he used Benoquin. But, yeah, it's better to not to state "bleaching cream" unless a reliable source does. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * @Flyer22 Reborn, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the misrepresentation. You said that on April 29th I used "grammar" as a "misleading" edit summary. Anyway, sorry for my mistakes and thanks again! GrammarDamner (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Levivich explained the edit summary matter as well. You were doing more than grammar. And your edits at some other articles show that you are doing more than grammar when stating "grammar" or the like. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * @Flyer22 Reborn, I had accidentally made incorrect edit summaries in the past, but in that particular incident, the ones that said grammar were grammar fixes. The others had different edit summaries. Perhaps I'm way too finicky about things like that. Sorry for focusing too much on this. Thanks again! GrammarDamner (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What Levivich stated above, including about "clarification," is correct. I have nothing else to state on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * @Flyer22 Reborn, okay then, we don't see eye to eye. Nothing wrong with that. Thank you! GrammarDamner (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)