User talk:Paulkjt

October 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to John Paulk has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: John Paulk was changed by Paulkjt (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.879419 on 2016-10-21T14:49:29+00:00.

Conflict of Interest editing
Here's a message that I left in response to what I assume were your edits on the page Talk:John Paulk (which is the talk page I'm encouraging you to post your comments on, rather than here):

An editor without a user account, claiming in edit summaries, recently did some extensive editing on this article, which has since been reverted. Since he is unlikely to check the IP talk page, I am addressing him here, with hops that he will see it and be able to address concerns.

Mr. Paulk (assuming that is indeed you), I appreciate your attempt to improve Wikipedia. We're always in favor of improving our articles! However, your specific edits run into certain concerns. We actually highly discourage people from editing articles about themselves, as you can see in our guidelines on conflicts of interest. That doesn't mean that you cannot help in improving this article in various ways. Some suggestions are: There are a number of editors who watch for changes to this talk page and should be able to consider such changes. That doesn't mean that you'll always get what you want, but that is your best path. Let me know if you have any questions! --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC) An editor without a user account, claiming in edit summaries, recently did some extensive editing on this article, which has since been reverted. Since he is unlikely to check the IP talk page, I am addressing him here, with hops that he will see it and be able to address concerns.
 * You added material on your more recent efforts, and we would certainly love to have a clear picture of your current status in the article. However, particularly for articles about still-living people, we place emphasis on making sure that the material is verifiable and comes from a reliable source. I'm sure you think "well, what could be a more reliable source than me?", but
 * We cannot count on an anonymous poster being who he is
 * What you say is not "verifiable", there is no reasonable way for someone reading the article to check that it is something you've claimed, as opposed to material that is in, say, a magazine article
 * We assume people are reliable only for things that aren't boastful or likely to benefit them. If I say I'm 5'8", that's not something I'm apt to lie about, so something I write can be cited for that, but if I say I can bench-press 800 pounds, I'm not reliable for that.
 * You removed a large chunk of sourced material on matters that were highly covered in the press. As uncomfortable as some of those matters may be, they are important to telling the full story, not just of you but of the ex-gay movement. (And as a side note, I think that having them visible serves your current goals, as an example of the levels of denial built into the groups pushing for ex-gayness.)
 * You removed various details that make clear specifics of your former involvement in the ex-gay cause.
 * If you know of any reliable sources, such as magazine and newspaper articles, that cover material that our article is missing and you think it should have, post links to those materials here on the talk page..
 * If there are things about you and what you are currently doing, particularly things that aren't particularly boastful, post that information on a blog or other web presence that you may have and that can be clearly identified as yours. Then post a link to that information here on this talk page.
 * If there is information that is inaccurate in our article, or other specific things that you think should be changed, post about that here on this talk page, so that we can evaluate your statements and the sources we have, and see if we can arrive at a more accurate and balanced article.

Mr. Paulk (assuming that is indeed you), I appreciate your attempt to improve Wikipedia. We're always in favor of improving our articles! However, your specific edits run into certain concerns. We actually highly discourage people from editing articles about themselves, as you can see in our guidelines on conflicts of interest. That doesn't mean that you cannot help in improving this article in various ways. Some suggestions are: There are a number of editors who watch for changes to this talk page and should be able to consider such changes. That doesn't mean that you'll always get what you want, but that is your best path. Let me know if you have any questions! --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You added material on your more recent efforts, and we would certainly love to have a clear picture of your current status in the article. However, particularly for articles about still-living people, we place emphasis on making sure that the material is verifiable and comes from a reliable source. I'm sure you think "well, what could be a more reliable source than me?", but
 * We cannot count on an anonymous poster being who he is
 * What you say is not "verifiable", there is no reasonable way for someone reading the article to check that it is something you've claimed, as opposed to material that is in, say, a magazine article
 * We assume people are reliable only for things that aren't boastful or likely to benefit them. If I say I'm 5'8", that's not something I'm apt to lie about, so something I write can be cited for that, but if I say I can bench-press 800 pounds, I'm not reliable for that.
 * You removed a large chunk of sourced material on matters that were highly covered in the press. As uncomfortable as some of those matters may be, they are important to telling the full story, not just of you but of the ex-gay movement. (And as a side note, I think that having them visible serves your current goals, as an example of the levels of denial built into the groups pushing for ex-gayness.)
 * You removed various details that make clear specifics of your former involvement in the ex-gay cause.
 * If you know of any reliable sources, such as magazine and newspaper articles, that cover material that our article is missing and you think it should have, post links to those materials here on the talk page..
 * If there are things about you and what you are currently doing, particularly things that aren't particularly boastful, post that information on a blog or other web presence that you may have and that can be clearly identified as yours. Then post a link to that information here on this talk page.
 * If there is information that is inaccurate in our article, or other specific things that you think should be changed, post about that here on this talk page, so that we can evaluate your statements and the sources we have, and see if we can arrive at a more accurate and balanced article.