User talk:JoshPaulThomas

December 2020
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Bob Mizer, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

False licensing information
You've uploaded several of Mizer's photos, claiming in the licensing information that they are "your own work". Wikipedia takes copyright seriously, so that isn't going to fly, and these images are going to be removed. Also, if you're going to claim that Mizer took more photographs than any other person, you need to provide a reliable source that says so. (Sure, he took a lot, but so have a lot of other prolific photographers.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No source is needed when it comes to numbers. He took over two million photographs, that is by all accounts more photos than any other human in existence. If you can find a source that says another photographer shot more than 2 million film photos, then the statement would be false. So in conclusion if no other know photographer has been documented to have shot more than 2 million film photos, Bob Mizer by simple fact has shot more photos than any other person in existence. Can't really argue with that, as the information of his shooting 2 million photographs is common knowledge.


 * That isn't how Wikipedia works. WP requires verifiability on claims like that, citing reliable sources. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, if you are in fact a representative of the Bob Mizer Foundation, you have a conflict of interest that means you should not be editing that article directly. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay thats understood, but why is the bobmizer.org foundation not a credible source? I'm not here to cause waves, but I do want to learn for you experienced guys how to play the game so that we can get the right information out there. Currently I'm doing a fundraise for the Organization and not having a sufficient wiki page is becoming an issue in the fact that younger generations are not able to see the vast amount of information provided by the only credible source on the artist (Bob Mizer Foundation).


 * It isn't a neutral source. We wouldn't welcome someone from the Trump Foundation posting unverified claims about Donald Trump on the article about him, and we wouldn't cite his web site as proof of anything claimed about him. We're holding the Bob Mizer article to the same standard.
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. I encourage you to take a look at how this project works, so you can contribute more constructively. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Since it is a non-profit and I receive no compensation what so ever, I feel there is no conflict of interest. I added a link from Moca.org which was also quickly removed ? Can you please explain why that is?

Also I just visited the Tom of Finland page and they have information from their official website in his boi, its cited with a link. So explain to me why Bob Mizer.org is not allowed to post on his page?

Also its quite shocking that you would correlate the Trump Organization and a dead queer artist such as Bob Mizer. The Foundation is run through public donations, and is a non-profit.


 * Conflict of interest isn't just about money. It's about Neutral Point Of View, which is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. You have an obvious interest in presenting Mizer in a positive light. You're so committed to it that you're serving on the board of directors for his foundation without even being paid for it. And on top of that, you just stated that you're doing a fund-raiser and you want the article to help that. Someone in that position cannot be objective about it. Which is the same problem someone (you?) ran into with the Bobmizer account, years ago.
 * I'd love to get into the details about what kinds of sources can be used for what kinds of information, but first you need to understand and accept the basics of what Wikipedia is and how it approaches the facts. Sorry, but it does treat infantile racist dictators the same as it treats courageous queer artists: neutrally and with independent verification of the facts. That's the only reason anyone takes it seriously.
 * And as a personal note, Wikipedia also has rules for how contributors need to behave. One of them is No Personal Attacks. Your repeated baseless accusations that I have some kind of anti-queer prejudice are not only a violation of that rule, they are absurdly off base. I'm a queer erotic artist, FFS. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)