User talk:Jp0d009

Regarding your comment left at my Talk page, I didn't see a proposal for article improvement. You suggest "... a Stormy Daniels paragraph on the Main Page for Alan Grayson", but I don't know what that means. What encyclopedic content are you suggesting be added to the article, and what are you trying to convey to our readers? Also, please be aware that a similar issue has been discussed already, here. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * thank you for the response. First Off, Sorry I must have messed up / gotten signed off last time when I posted. My Address is 96.255.75.220 while my User Name is Jp0d009 (just saying to avoid confusion).  I did read the post you mentioned before posting on  your page.  It seemed to have slipped into partisanship pretty fast & but lacked I believe the biggest problem: It talked about what happened Vs allowimg 'tabloid' esque material.


 * ---> PLEASE Read... Bottom First Jp0d009 (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The important part, in my opinion, I believe the issue begins before this. Are the rules just to protect Dem Profiles Or is there room enough with the rules to allow for some wiggle room / working together as its usually done with GOp profiles? Basically GOP figures get tabloid "facts" all over their pages in detail, while DEM figures are pretty well guarded.    Which I was trying to show, probably not well lol, for President Clinton, President Obama, & President Trump that different people received drastic different applications of the rules.


 * Sorry to have bothered you too. Part of the reasons I reached out to you is the mention on your talk page, of yourself talking about your own use of long posts. LoL as you can see I can Go on Rants. I just wannna try and simply clear the air with this, have a real discussion about this and see if some progress can be made if you wished. I didn't just simply want to have a partisanship back and forth.  I wanted to try to have a civil discussion on this, if you want. That is is why I contacted you on your talk page.  If you don't, I totally I understand.  Just let me know & I'll follow your lead and just delete this from my talk page.


 * I attempted to say in my post to you my point, why I didn't include my improvement for the page. If we don't first talk about the merits of adding the material, then its worthless talking about them.. get what I'm saying? I could say ooh the police reports!  But you believe its tabloid talk. Like i originally said "And I Didn't Want to simply do edits to Alan Grayson page without a proper discussion on this which hopefully this at least starts."  That yeah we all know the improvements both sides are talking about, but I am asking for a discussion about the merits about what has been brought up.  But I should have mentioned what I believed could be included. Such as basically what has been reported.  Lolita's Account, Alan's Account, Authority's Account, & Experts analysis (election impact).  Basically whats been covered by everyone, including yourself in the posts.


 * Im certain you were simply mistaken/ lol or good ol joking when you suggested I said Stormy Daniels should be inserted in Alan Grayson's Article. I was talking about how the bar is so lowered for Republicans that anything is slapped in, while for Democrats the rules must be upheld to the letter exactly. We got the tabloid take & We get the traditional Encyclopedia take. Depends the Party affiliation of said article for what rules you get. I respect whatever way, if it was generally applied to both equally.


 * Just to be clear, here is what I said about Stormy Daniels, "Then if you go back up some on Clinton's again.. to: 2.3 Legal affairs and bankruptcies Last Paragraph in that part, is all about Stormy Daniels. Full Paragraph. And Hey I Get Wikipedia is Usually Pretty Liberal. But Bill Clinton Main page, Juanita Broaddrick has simply 1 sentence. That is it. I get we all have our biases, but I its bit much isn't? President Clinton & President Obama's Wikipedia's Pages paint them in far greater light, while rushing past the negative parts." [_Regarding_Alan_Grayson_Topic_'Abuse_allegations']]


 * Because I think that is the biggest problem your entire argument for not including the Spousal Abuse allegations against Alan Grayson & what many experts have said affected his political career. Also other problems helped add to it.  But right now, it just feels like his Political Career just simply ended.  Which really is not that simple.


 * I think looking at what is on our President's Main Page on Wikipedia Page is revealing::
 * QUOTE FROM President Trump's Wikipedia Main Page: "Adult film actress Stormy Daniels has alleged that she and Trump had an extramarital affair in 2006, months after the birth of his youngest child.[182] Just before the 2016 presidential election Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, was paid $130,000 by Trump's attorney Michael Cohen as part of a non-disclosure agreement, through an LLC set up by Cohen; he says he used his own personal money for the payment.[183] In February 2018, Daniels filed suit against the LLC asking to be released from the agreement so that she can tell her story. Cohen filed a private arbitration proceeding and obtained a restraining order to keep her from discussing the case.[184] According to White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump has denied the allegations.[185] On March 16 Cohen, with Trump's approval, asked for Daniels' suit to be moved from state to federal court, based on the criteria that the parties live in different places and the amount at stake is more than $75,000; Cohen asserted that Daniels could owe $20 million in liquidated damages for breaching the agreement.[186] The filing marked the first time that Trump himself, through his personal attorney, has taken part in the Daniels litigation.[187]" Link: []


 * So our President Denies it, We don't know what the NDA says, nothing criminal is being alleged against the President.


 * So Basically... My point simply is... Is it Important that we both together make a stand for the rules of Wikipedia and fight this tabloid written paragraph on the main page for our President? Because seriously be it a Democratic President, Republican President, or any WP:WELLKNOWN Person's page should be upheld to the rules? And Make Sure WP:BLP & WP:WELLKNOWN rules don't just crumble, causing more Tabloid content?


 * Or is the Stormy Daniels & Lolita Grayson allegations not a problem being included? Because Stormy got paid off for the NDA & Loilta had significant bruises indicative of a beating.  I don't want this to simply look as hey look they do it over there, so it should be done over here.


 * My point is that if these rules are as serious as you have talked about in those post you linked to, & I believe you are sincere, that their must be something wrong. We really could come together and find a compromise on the Alan Grayson page..... Or if you are against that still totally would, you be open to helping a novice like myself at working to have Wikipedia apply these rules fairly across the board?  Just suggesting either. Jp0d009 (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * ooo i see where your stormy confusion is. Lets read the entire paragraph and see if it helps.


 * "I'm just saying with something from a Official Police Officer's Report, she had "swollen left check, a cut on her right arm/wrist, and swollen feet." and everything else included... It would At the very least warrant a Stormy Daniels paragraph on the Main Page for Alan Grayson (Maybe just tad bit more seeing as this wouldn't probably be expanded, but just my opinion)."
 * As you can see, I'm talking about Lolita with the report / decription right?
 * And as rest of my post prior to paragrah im talking about differences / comparing wikipedia admins n such results in major Democratoc and Republican articles.


 * I think you are confusing that I said basically: put stormy daniels inserted into alan grayson.  Buy What i said is A stormy daniels paragraph. That yea if stormy daniels gets a paragraph on our Presidents page, which is far more tabloid.. Then I dont see what's the problem with this. Of course yea then it begs the question what to say n such.


 * So either if your question is #1 stormy in grayson article.. Best way to show in Example if One asked  what does A hitchcockian film mean.  Doesn't mean hitchcock film itself....   #2 if it was why simply  why should this gey get a paragraph (Lolita) Hopefully I answered both for you. Jp0d009 (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * ---> PLEASE Read... I hope You Understand. If you plan on responding back, if you could possibly hold back for the next day or so (if not, just ignore all this lol).  I would very much appreciate it.  I'm going to be going over what I've posted and doing an overhaul.  Condense Stuff, elaborate when needed, Properly explain, when needed.  Really working at making sure we both are on the same page on at least what is being said.  Hopefully clear up any confusion.  But if that's a problem, just let me know, totally understandable.  Sorry I keep posting lol, That is why I am going to try and clean it up a great deal.
 * Stuff happens, you know? You may get confused over something I said And/Or in reverse you'll ask a question that I may not understand.
 * So What I am Planning to take whats in the Rules, in Articles, Already Discussed by Others, And what We've Discussed/ Asked/ Suggested. And trying to bring it together::
 * From Alan Graysons talk page, Where I Commented and you responded
 * My few responses here (formally on my IP Talk Page)
 * Making Sure Im properly taking into account the facts of information from the previous discussions on Alan Grayson's Talk Page over the Abuse
 * Also the Discussion from Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (just the info itself, not talking about posting it all here)
 * Making Sure I Properly Know the Rules for WP:BLP & WP:WELLKNOWN... And How they Are Being Implemented across Wikipedia.
 * Jp0d009 (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing up the confusion between your IP and Jp0d009 accounts. I'll post any further replies here to your registered account, just to keep things together for convenience.
 * I'll repeat my question that I asked above, as I feel it bears repeating: What encyclopedic content are you suggesting be added to the Grayson article, and what are you trying to convey to our readers?  This is the crux of the matter.  I see you have made numerous remarks about Trump, Clinton, Stormy Daniels, etc., but I am unfamiliar with those articles and discussing them won't be helpful with regard to the Grayson article (the subject of this discussion) anyway.  I have no doubt other crap exists in other articles, regardless of whether they are 'GOP', 'DEM' or anything else.  But crap in one article never justifies putting crap in another article.  You've also remarked that "Hey I Get Wikipedia is Usually Pretty Liberal ..." and "I get we all have our biases ..." and "would, you be open to helping a novice like myself at working to have Wikipedia apply these rules fairly across the board?" For every Wikipedian who complains that Wikipedia is too "conservative", there is another Wikipedian who complains that it is too "liberal", and vice versa.  For every politics-related article that appears to be written "too negatively", there is also an article written "too positively", depending on which Wikipedian you ask.  My only advice to you is: (1) If you feel there is content that should be added/removed in those non-Grayson articles, leave a comment expressing your concern and your reasons why, on the Talk page for those articles.  (2) When considering making improvements to an article, if your motivation for editing it is simply to add negative or positive material because of some perceived (partisan) imbalance compared with a completely different article, it would be best to avoid such editing -- it likely wouldn't get far.  We edit to bring articles up to encyclopedic standards, not to make one article just as bad as another unrelated article -- even to satisfy a personal opinion of what is 'fair across the board'.


 * So, back to the Grayson article. You mention WP:BLP and WP:WELLKNOWN; have you studied them?  When considering article improvements, please ask yourself if your intention is to add tabloidism, and titillating sensationalism, without regard for the privacy of living persons?  Remember, Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article.  In addition, Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person ... some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes", Wikipedia is not the medium for this.  And you mention "Grayson abuse" and "police reports", but regarding which of the 7 Grayson family members and which incidents?  Do you mean when Lolita appeared at a hospital with bruises she claimed were from Grayson the previous day, but it turns out it was she who assaulted him? And that is according to an uninvolved witness, and Lolita's daughter, and a video, and even Lolita's 911 call in which she actually admitted, after being asked if Grayson hurt her, "no" and said she pushed him instead. She told police she grabbed Grayson by the face and kneed him in the midsection, causing him to buckle over. Or did you mean the allegations that Lolita had her daughter arrested for battery over an argument about smoking in the car? Or that Lolita bit her youngest kid on the arm and then called police on her kid?   While WP:WELLKNOWN may apply to one of the Graysons, it does not apply to the other 6 Graysons.  This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN.  For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.  As Wikipedia editors writing about living people, we need to remember: Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures.  In addition, This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.


 * All of this was raised in the BLP Noticeboard discussion, so you may already be aware of it, but I've repeated it as a reminder. With Wikipedia policies firmly in mind, could you propose here the encyclopedic information you would like to add to the article - the actual words/sentences - and briefly explain how that information would benefit the readers of the Grayson article?  That is always the best starting point.   Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)