User talk:PeterBoykin

COI discussion
Please see Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Since you have a conflict of interest, I strongly recommend suggesting article edits on its corresponding talk page. Thanks, --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia
Hi PeterBoykin. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia along with my regular editing. Thank you for disclosing here that you were one of the organizers of March 4 Trump. Your edit here which you have restored multiple times is apparently a picture of yourself. On both levels, this constitutes a COI in WP. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, PeterBoykin. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests
Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do.

Thanks again for disclosing that you organized this event; this means that you have a COI for this event, as we define that in Wikipedia.

A tag has been added to the article's talk page, so the disclosure is done there.

As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:
 * a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and
 * b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. You can make the edit request easily -  and provide notice to the community of your request -  by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline.  Someone else made that easy for you by adding a section to the beige box at the top of the Talk page at Talk:March 4 Trump -  there is a link at "click here" in that section --  if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (which I will say more about, if you want).

I hope that makes sense to you.

Will you please agree to follow the peer review processes going forward, when you want to work on the article or any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. And if you want me to quickly go over the content policies, I can do that. Just let me know. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I dont know how all this works.. I just want someone to edit the page to have the full info in there and correct info in there... one we had way more than 150 people at our rally... we had almost 1000 sign up for tickets from the ticketing sites I maintained. Also it mentioned the tea party had organized our rally.. all we had was one speaker... I can provide all the speakers, and I ran the event.. whats wrong with giving proper credit? Also Joy and Andre should be included on the page... I dont see what the heck is the problem with having proper info on the page... again I dont understand all these terms and stuff on how wikipedia works I just want someone to take the edits I put on the page verify them and have them up there.... how hard is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterBoykin (talk • contribs) 21:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying!  Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon ":" in front of your comment, and the WP software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons "::" which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this  in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread.  I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages.  That is how we know who said what.  I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that.  Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for replying! Yes I get it, that you don't know how all this works.  I just want to focus for now on the issue of "conflict of interest."  You don't seem to have actually read the message above.  Would you please slow down and read it, and also read WP:COI?


 * Once you have done that, please consider that adding a picture of yourself is a conflict of interest and being the organizer of an event puts you very close to that event, and creates a conflict of interest between your committment to the event and WP's goals of providing neutral, well sourced content to readers. Please let me know if you understand that.  Thanks.  Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The picture came up under potential pictures to be used... can you put one of joy and Andre instead? I still dont understand how all this works whats more accurate than showing a picture of the person who put the event together and admitting that I did... I could provide lots of proof that i did... so does someone else have to submit it to get it on the page? PeterBoykin (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh then I screwed up and posted this on the main page... sorry.. this stuff is confusing.. so how can we get the page properly edited. I could probablly provide all sorts of stuff to be added to the page to make it legit.. but I guess somehow its has to follow rules and stuff I dont understand... please help... I just want the correct info on the page and I would like more pictures on the page. PeterBoykin (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand that you are all passionate about the article. I get that. But you need to learn to walk before you can run.  On a legal level, please know that every time you click "save" you are agreeing to follow the Terms of Use of Wikipedia, which obligate you to follow the community's policies and guidelines, and the Terms of Use also say that if you fail to follow them, the community can block you temporarily or indefinitely.   There is actually a kind of "rule of law" here, put in place by the community over the past 15 years.  On the "spirit" level that is how it works too - you are here as a Wikipedian and we will all treat you as such.
 * But as I said the first thing we have to do, is get you grounded on the fact that you have a conflict of interest in Wikipedia with regard to this topic. Will you please acknowledge that?  I will be happy to teach you how this place works, but we have to start at the starting point. Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * yea I read that but how do I get around this COI that I have, and get someone to publish correct info. Basically I am stating the the tea party did not organize the Dc event, I did along with vince, and that Joy and Andre attended the event as key note speakers, also that more than 150 attended before I have the tickets to prove it. what can we do about that?PeterBoykin (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for acknowledging that you have a COI. Now we are started.  But you still haven't taken the time to actually read what I wrote above and I am starting to lose patience with you.   Please actually read what I wrote, especially what is at "b)".  If you don't understand something there, please ask a specific question about it. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good, you found the relevant article Talk page. Please see way below, for how to edit. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning
I just want to make sure you are aware that repeatedly reverting is not OK. Please see the warning below.

Your recent editing history at March 4 Trump shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to March 4 Trump has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2017 (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: March 4 Trump was changed by PeterBoykin (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.956087 on 2017-03-09T21:40:55+00:00.

How to edit
OK, you found Talk:March 4 Trump

The following will get you oriented to how this place works, and to the key policies and guidelines. It is as brief as I can make it...

The first thing, is that our mission is to produce articles that provide readers with encyclopedia content that summarize accepted knowledge, and to do that as a community that anyone can be a part of. That's the mission. As you can imagine, if this place had no norms, it would be a Mad Max kind of world interpersonally, and content would be a slag heap (the quality is really bad in parts, despite our best efforts). But over the past 15 years the community has developed a whole slew of norms, via lots of discussion. One of the first, is that we decide things by consensus. That decision itself, is recorded here: WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of our "policies". And when we decide things by consensus, that is not just local in space and time, but includes meta-discussions that have happened in the past. The results of those past meta-discussions are the norms that we follow now. We call them policies and guidelines - and these documents all reside in "Wikipedia space" (There is a whole forest of documents in "Wikipedia space" - pages in Wikipedia that start with " Wikipedia: AAAA" or for short, " WP: AAAA". WP:CONSENSUS is different from Consensus.)

People have tried to define Wikipedia - is it a democracy, an anarchy, secret cabal? In fact it is a clue-ocracy (that link is to a very short and important text).

There are policies and guidelines that govern content, and separate ones that govern behavior. Here is a very quick rundown:


 * Content policies and guidelines:
 * WP:NOT (what WP is, and is not -- this is where you'll find the "accepted knowledge" thing. You will also find discussion of how WP is not a catalog, not a how-to manual, not a vehicle for promotion, etc)
 * WP:OR - no original research is allowed here, instead
 * WP:VERIFY - everything has to be cited to a reliable source (so everything in WP comes down to the sources you bring!)
 * WP:RS is the guideline defining what a "reliable source" is for general content and WP:MEDRS defines what reliable sourcing is for content about health
 * WP:NPOV and the content that gets written, needs to be "neutral" (as we define that here, which doesn't mean what most folks think -- it doesn't mean "fair and balanced" - it means that the language has to be neutral, and that topics in a given article are given appropriate "weight" (space and emphasis). An article about a drug that was 90% about side effects, would generally give what we call "undue weight" to the side effects. Of course if that drug was important because it killed a lot of people, not having 90% of it be about the side effects would not be neutral)    We determine weight by seeing what the reliable sources say - we follow them in this too.  So again, you can see how everything comes down to references.
 * WP:BLP - this is a policy specifically covering discussion about living people anywhere in WP. We are very careful about such content (which means enforcing the policies and guidelines above rigorously), since issues of legal liability can arise for WP, and people have very strong feelings about other people, and about public descriptions of themselves.
 * WP:NOTABILITY - this is a policy that defines whether or not an article about X, should exist. What this comes down to is defined in WP:Golden rule - which is basically, are there enough independent sources about X, with which to build a decent article.
 * WP:DELETION discusses how we get rid of articles that fail notability.

In terms of behavior, the key norms are: If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course. I know that was a lot of information, but hopefully it is digestable enough. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS - already discussed
 * WP:CIVIL - basically, be nice.  This is not about being nicey nice, it is really about not being a jerk and having that get in the way of getting things done.  We want to get things done here - get content written and maintained and not get hung up on interpersonal disputes.  So just try to avoid doing things that create unproductive friction.
 * WP:AGF - assume good faith about other editors. Try to focus on content, not contributor.  Don't personalize it when content disputes arise.  (the anonymity here can breed all kinds of paranoia)
 * WP:HARASSMENT - really, don't be a jerk and follow people around, bothering them. And do not try to figure out who people are in the real world.  Privacy is strictly protected by the WP:OUTING part of this policy.
 * WP:DR - if you get into an content dispute with someone, try to work it out on the article Talk page. Don't WP:EDITWAR.  If you cannot work it out locally, then use one of the methods here to get wider input.  There are many - it never has to come down to two people arguing. There are instructions here too, about what to do if someone is behaving badly, in your view.  Try to keep content disputes separate from behavior disputes.   Many of the big messes that happen in Wikipedia arise from these getting mixed up.
 * WP:COI and WP:PAID which I discussed way above already. This is about preserving the integrity of WP.  A closely related issue is WP:ADVOCACY; COI is just a subset of advocacy.
 * WP:TPG - this is about how to talk to other editors on Talk pages, like this one, or say Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol and e-liquid.  At article talk pages, basically be concise, discuss content not contributors, and base discussion on the sources in light of policies and guidelines, not just your opinions or feelings. At user talk pages things are more open, but that is the relevant place to go if you want to discuss someone's behavior or talk about general WP stuff - like this whole post.


 * WP:PAININTHEASS you forgot this one WP = Pain in the ass :) ok I have a headache will look at all this tomorrow.PeterBoykin (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Gays for Trump
Hello. So, I do not recommend editing the Gays for Trump article directly, given your conflict of interest, but I did want to bring this page to your attention. You are welcome to post edit requests on the article's talk page, if you'd like. Take care, --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I just saw this, again thanks for helping out and getting this page out, don't worry I am not going to directly edit anything.. as its too damn much to figure out anyway.. but I do have the talk page thing down.