User talk:Lawfulneutral

An extended welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Welcome, Lawfulneutral, and thanks for the improvements you've made to a few articles. I have a couple suggestions, if you don't mind: First, please leave an edit summary whenever you make any change to an article. This makes collaboration easier for everyone here. The link I put in the previous sentence provides guidance on how best to craft a summary—what to include, and what to avoid. Eric talk 22:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip!--Lawfulneutral (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Procedures
I'm watching Naveen Jain due to an involvement in some disagreements quite a long time ago. We are each evaluated by our edits so you should check what I do rather than what I say. However, I say that I am completely neutral regarding the subject, with a small inclination to think that some of the editing I have seen in the past has been over-the-top in its attempt to downplay the topic. I haven't yet had time to see what the current fuss is about, but as far I am concerned I would welcome a new editor who wants to clean up the article. I am posting here to let you know that your approach must change if you want to have any success. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That means SPAs and POV pushers are frequently seen on many, many pages. Complaining about other editors, or even mentioning other editors, causes experienced users to roll their eyes and discount the views of the person making the comments. The point is that anyone can edit, so obviously there will be malcontents and incompetents as well as the opposite. Who cares about another editor—their personal traits are irrelevant. What matters is article content. Therefore, the only sensible discussion is that which concerns article content. A particular edit might be good or bad, and that point should be explored on article talk pages. However, the characteristics of an editor are strictly off-limits because they are irrelevant (we don't care if someone is unbalanced) and pursuing that line would lead to chaos of the kind seen in any internet forum that lacks strict moderation. Some occasional counter-examples are seen. For example, you are an SPA and it is reasonable for that point to be made so other editors can be alert. Such a point is simply something to bear in mind but is also irrelevant when it comes to anything substantive. That is because all that matters is article content and anyone can present an argument (with reliable sources) to justify a particular edit.

The section Talk:Naveen Jain is very misguided. If you are suggesting that something be changed in the article, say that. Say it clearly. What text should be removed? What text should be added? Why? Be brief. Whining about "systemically wrong" and using a pointless section heading gives neutral editors the view that you are here on a campaign. That is not going to work. If you have a point, just present it. Adding commentary about salaciousness or libel or anything of a campaign nature means other editors cannot see whatever point is hidden in the section. Also, who would want to engage in that section, and what could they say? Suppose someone agreed that some text was "systemically wrong"? So what? What matters is what text should be removed and what text should be added, and why.

If you any questions please respond here, or ask at WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. I am not an SPA, I am new. There is a difference. I've posted tons of articles available on that subject I found through a few minutes with a search engine. I made several efforts to edit the content into a form that was actually about the subject and reflected a neutral point of view rather than the baked-in negative that makes the article so awful while maintaining facts that actually seem to matter. There is an editor who keeps that article as-is (highly negative) and out-right attempts to control any change with a variety of tactics. Frankly, I don't really care what that editor's COI is. I'm shocked he's gotten away with it for so long. I don't care if there's been some drama on the article in the past. Given the negative slant, that doesn't surprise me. I came here to improve articles. Other real articles on the subject led me to wikipedia (because this badly written article pops up on search results) and the glaring disparity between this article and what's currently out there concerned me ... not because it's negative, but because if you can carefully lie about someone like that with wikipedia, that's going to seriously harm wikipedia's credibility when it eventually blows up. I'm moving on to other articles for now as time allows because I don't actually have an agenda beyond neutral articles based on facts without charged words. I stand by my sentiment in that section, so eye-roll away if you like, label me with SPA or whatever other lingo you like, but that's flat-out character assassination to make bizarre claims like somehow that guy caused the dot com bubble. Anyway, thanks for the advice and see you around.--Lawfulneutral (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine, but my comment was aimed at providing information on what would be needed to be successful. Wikipedia is pretty brutal and achieving anything requires patience and an understanding of standard procedures as I outlined. Contemplating them shows that they are very rational and there is unlikely to be any other way of maintaining a large website that is not run by a do-it-my-way administration. Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * False accusations of vandalism are violations of WP:AGF and typically count as personal attacks. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. And you are saying my edits were poor and should have been removed, while his immediate removal was not, in fact vandalism but rather ... what, exactly? I can't wait for you to clarify just what, exaclty, Ronz's edits are in a positive, collaborative sense? --Lawfulneutral (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions at Stephen Barrett
--Ronz (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please keep your "banners" off my talk page as your attempt at intimidation is just more bullying and is really, really sad. Thanks. If you have something to actually say, something specific, something constructive to improve wikipedia, please do post that. I can post my concern to that page's talk page. Unless, of course, that's "illegal" too in Ronz's wikipedia? Eagerly waiting for your specific reply. --Lawfulneutral (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)