User talk:Raggedtrouseredphilanthropists2019

June 2019
Hello, I'm TheDoDahMan. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Stephane Graff have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. TheDoDahMan (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I may be new to editing wikipedia pages, but I am slightly confused as to how adding important factual information can be described as vandalism? Furthermore, I feel that I can also challenge the claim that adding appropriate context could be perceived as unconstructive. Thanks Raggedtrouseredphilanthropists2019 (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Your username
Hello Raggedtrouseredphilanthropists2019, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry that you've gotten off to a bad start here (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2A02:C7D:83D:4800:A516:130:8812:3C69 and my comments there) but I would like to help. I have two recommendations for you.


 * 1) I believe your username violates our policy on usernames which imply disruptive intent, seeing how you seem to be focused on editing articles on philanthropists. I would like to suggest that you should change it. You can find instructions on how to do that here.
 * 2) It seems obvious that you have been editing while logged out, in a way which seems that you are trying to appear to be more than one person, or in a way designed to avoid scrutiny. Neither of these is allowed on Wikipedia. Now that you have created one, please stick to one account. There are situations where the use of multiple accounts is allowed (IP addresses are considered accounts by this policy) but under no circumstances are you permitted to contribute to one article or discussion using more than one account, nor both logged-in and logged-out.

The third thing which seems to be getting you in trouble is you keep trying to add information about a living person without adding a reliable source to back it up, and some editors seem to find the information you're trying to add controversial. Our policy on biographies of living persons is clear on this: controversial information about living persons must not be published on Wikipedia unless a reliable source is provided. We take this seriously: editors only get one warning about this, and then you will be blocked from editing.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask here or on my talk page. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ivanvector To address each of your points. 1) Ragged trousered philanthropists is a favourite novel of mine and any connection is merely a coincidence. 2) With regards to the varying IP addresses, that is merely down to laziness (not bothering to log in when editing on many different devices), but I shall ensure in the future I edit from this account. 3) While I would challenge that the information i am adding should be considered controversial, I shall endeavor to properly source in future edits (in fact there is an enormous amount of what I consider unsubstantiated controversial content in the article altogether, clearly written in an attempt to paint the page's subject in an unwarrantedly favourable light). Finally, I feel its fair to say that the bad actors in this case are in fact those involved in this 'war' with me. Repeatedly removing factual (although admittedly only properly sourced once (also out of laziness on my part)) information and calling it vandalism (lets be clear, the phrase i am trying to add is 'son of billionaire, Laurence Graff'). By taking out this edit all they are doing is undermining wikipedia's purpose to enlighten those who arrive on its pages by removing a piece of information that is crucial to understanding the page's subject.

Thanks very much for being reasonable, Raggedtrouseredphilanthropists2019 (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining the meaning of your username. I'm not familiar with that work, I'll have to look it up. We have an odd definition of "controversial" here which doesn't necessarily correspond with the real world, but it works well internally. Basically, any edit that is reverted is to be considered controversial, until there is a discussion. Some things end up being controversial for no good reason at all, but this process saves us from a lot of silly fights. And sometimes you learn that apparently innocent things are actually controversial for good reasons that you wouldn't have thought of, like the art as class mobility discussion that's kind of happening over on Stephane Graff's talk page now. This is a weird place sometimes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

TheDoDahMan (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)