User talk:Mri500!

Your recent editing history at Jessica Cantlon shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Reason article
Hi there, you are deleting sources which are high quality (e.g. Nature, The Chronicle of Higher Education), which provide context for the Reason article. It is not neutral to include this article without including information about ways in which it might be problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimchimpski (talk • contribs) 23:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * (The information contained in that edit is not in the paragraph above) Nimchimpski (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ... and that's not "my narrative", the text added was only from the University's report. Nimchimpski (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * None of the information included above is neutral. People have all the sources they need on the page to make their own judgement of the case. You cannot just suppress information. Mri500! (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one deleting references. I'm adding them to provide context to a biased article. It IS discussing the article to include this additional information. Nimchimpski (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of the included information is from the University's report. It's not neutral, I agree, but it's also not the plaintiff's perspective. Nimchimpski (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The plaintiff's perspective is captured in the previous section. This section is to discuss a different and new finding by an investigative journalist from a credible news source Mri500! (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The neutral approach here is not to uncritically quote a source that didn't include the plaintiff's data or evidence, any more than it would be to quote a source that didn't include anything from Jaeger. Providing context/criticism for the Reason article is the responsible way to handle this material. Nimchimpski (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And to be clear, this information is NOT the plantiff's version (I haven't quoted their lawsuit, which would be a source without Jaeger). It's from the University's investigation, which Herzog's article is (selectively) based on. Nimchimpski (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Ann Olivarius
Hi! I agree that the Reason article is worth mentioning when the case is discussed. However, I don't think we should be discussing the case at the Ann Olivarius article - at the moment, the only thing it says is that she represented Kidd and Cantlon. We don't go into any specifics of the case, and I don't think that we should - if it is to be discussed anywhere, it is on the articles about them, as covering just the Reason article (and the claim about Olivarius's husband) brings it more attention that is warranted. I think it is much better if we only mention that she was involved in the case, and cover the case itself on the articles of those who instigated it. - Bilby (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi there,
 * Thank you for your message, and I appreciate your perspective on this. Here are my thoughts: even though Olivarius isn't named in the article she is mentioned as "lawyer." It does not feel fair to cover the Silence Breaker story on her page without giving fuller context, especially with the new information that has come out. As the complainants' lawyer, Olivarius was very involved in the damaging narrative Herzog discusses. Part of being a public figure is the controversy that can at times follow. It feels like suppressing information to cover one part of a story, but not the other. Olivarius' connection to the plaintiffs and work on this case can be cited in, many articles. Mri500! (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that to give it the fuller context you are describing, we also need to include the allegations they were making against Jaeger, which then means we end up with an expanded discussion. I think it is much better to keep it short and simple - state that she acted in the case, but leave out the details for and against Jaeger and the plaintiffs altogether. I think there is a different argument to be had on other articles, such as Cantlon's, because there we are already giving details of the case, and therefore we should also mention the Reason article. - Bilby (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
Hello, I'm InterstateFive. I noticed that you recently removed content from Jessica F. Cantlon without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. InterstateFive (talk) - just another roadgeek 23:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Someone keeps deleting the summary of Herzog's findings and trying to rehash the UR case in its place. I'm only undoing the deletion of what had been written. It feels fair for someone to cite criticisms of the article, but not to delete the summary of its findings and add their own editorializing in its place. Mri500! (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Jessica Cantlon shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am confused why a recent article that is relevant to the case mentioned on this page cannot be cited? Also, I'm just trying to put information up that Nimchimpski keeps deleting--are they receiving the same warning? Mri500! (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Celeste Kidd shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Can you explain why the Reason article link is being suppressed? That is relevant information from a credible news source. Mri500! (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NPF and WP:REDFLAG, any allegation, including that of an alleged smear campaign, must be supported by multiple reliable sources. Reason is just one RS. Do you have another? Also, these articles are being discussed at the BLP Noticeboards. That's how I learned about this editing dispute. Please contribute to the discussion rather than continue edit warring. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I hear you and that makes sense but that is very problematic in this particular case due to the fact that the other side of this story was not covered by the mainstream media (as discussed in the Reason article). I understand not editorializing, but to suppress a story entirely seems unreasonable and against the spirit of Wikipedia. Would it be possible just to include a link to the story noting that it had found to differ from the previous narrative? Mri500! (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs or complete the story. Please stop edit warring over this. Too much space is already devoted to these allegations in all of these disputed wikipedia articles.   Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can't ride the crest of the wave because we can only report what is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion."
 * Including an article of record seems to be part of what Wikipedia says it can offer...I am not interested in "warring" with people or pages, but I do think Wikipedia readers should at least have access to what has been reported Mri500! (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * One article of record is not sufficient to support any allegation or counterallegation in a biography. Please stop reinserting this across every pertinent article you can find. Read WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. Your next edit continuing this may get you blocked. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)