User talk:Wilbur777

Wilbur777, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

May 2015
Hello, I'm TeaLover1996. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Ingrid Newkirk because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. TeaLover1996 (talk)  04:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome
Wilbur777 welcome to Wikipedia, I just wanted to let you know that instead of replying on the editors page that made the changes you should be opening a discussion on the article talk page. This will help to bring in more conversation, and make it easier for others to see what is going on. If you have issues or praise for a specific editor's behavior you should do that on the users talk page. As a nicety you could also either ping the editor who made the change or you can put a quick note on their talk page. Also I suggest your read WP:BRD - the jist of the article is make a bold edit. If it is reverted then go to the talk page to discuss. Finally just a piece of advice, the areas you are diving into can be very heated and people have strong passions one way or another on these issues, take it slow, and take the time to discuss. There are wikiboards if you want more points of view. However pay attention to our rules about Canvassing Thanks, VViking Talk Edits 13:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Esprit. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Casadesus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Schumann. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harmonielehre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nonesuch ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Harmonielehre check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Harmonielehre?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jazz Impressions of Eurasia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyde Park ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Jazz_Impressions_of_Eurasia check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Jazz_Impressions_of_Eurasia?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Masterpieces by Ellington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lawrence Brown ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Masterpieces_by_Ellington check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Masterpieces_by_Ellington?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

March 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Tutelary (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:COI and WP:PAID
Are you a member of PETA, affiliated with PETA, or being paid by PETA? I ask not to offend, but because of your repeated conduct on the PETA page, and the phrasing you use. If you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit (your "employer"), who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship. It does not matter whether you are paid directly by the client, or paid indirectly by an employer on behalf of the client. - WP:PAID Tutelary (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I was not previously aware of this WP:COI guideline. It appears that I am indeed "compromised" under it. However, I only wish that I were being paid for the work I just did. I would much rather have used the free time I just devoted to writing a lengthy response on the "Talk" page this morning to something else. I did it because I strongly believe that it's important for this page to be accurate and well-balanced. I am a vegan and an animal rights supporter, and I would like to see groups such as PETA succeed in their important missions and not be misrepresented in significant sources of public information such as Wikipedia. I am also acutely aware of the ways they are attacked by industry groups, who attempt to "control the narrative" just as is done in politics.


 * Most of my edits on Wikipedia, however, as can easily be verified, are actually to music articles.


 * Given this guideline, I will recuse myself from further editing of the PETA page. I have stated my slightly more than 2 cents about what should be done, and I guess it will be up to others to implement any changes. But it seems that very few editors and would-be editors have nearly as much knowledge of this subject matter as I do. And I think many people are influenced by propaganda without realizing it. Industries and governments spend billions on propaganda because it works to influence what people are focused on (and not focused on).


 * I hope you will also raise this issue with users who are obviously hostile to PETA and may be employed by such groups as the Center for Organizational Research and Education. Believe me, they are out there, and when I started to make occasional contributions to the PETA page a few years ago, it definitely looked like they had written much of it. And if they hadn't directly, people they influenced had.


 * I seriously doubt, though, that they would be as honest with you as I'm being.

Wilbur777 (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * as an editor who is unrelated to either side of either Peta’s Advocacy or industry lobbyists (I’m a Shanghai based interior architect and occasional contributor) I have looked at the article. I have not assessed it in terms of the content, but in terms of the quality of sources used. While I expected to find a great deal of primary sources used - this does not appear to be the case. Most of it is based on reliable journals. The article does adopt a generally sympathetic tone but this could just be because reliable sources generally come across as being supportive. I did find some main problems with it:
 * firstly a lot of the sources are primarily based on secondary coverage and cite the secondary source. However they also often include a cite bundle, which reads: “for PETA’s view see...” or something of that nature. It can be reasonably argued that this is link spam. It’s not contributing a great deal to the context of the article and if it were it would be primary sourced information. This practice should be greatly reduced.


 * secondly, some of it definitely is primary sourced.


 * thirdly the contents of the article should be reviewed with regard to what their sources are actually about. If an secondary sourced and reliable article is about a botched campaign and happens to mention a part of their manefesto as part of the context of the article, then the source definitely shouldn’t be used to state a part of their manefesto as this would be unduly cherry picking. There’s a bit of that going on in the article to some degree.


 * in short it’s been well written and sourced by a decidedly sympathetic editor and could do with a more neutral editor checking over it, but it probably doesn’t need a large scale overhaul.


 * hope that’s “honest” enough for you. I will post this on the talk page but I wanted to reply here first because it’s related to some of the qualms you have with industry intervention and COI

Edaham (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I particularly appreciate your statement that the article has been "well written and sourced by a decidedly sympathetic editor." I endeavored to be sympathetic without being overly biased. I left all adequately sourced criticism, even when I personally felt it was disproportionate or trivial. Appreciated or not, I put a lot of effort at various points into improving that article in terms of content, style, sources, and basic editing. And I should probably clarify that I did so entirely on my personal initiative, because it was something I felt passionately about. There are many potential pitfalls when people not terribly familiar with the organization and the issues attempt to edit it, such as distorting emphases, unwittingly repeating industry propaganda and outright lies that get amplified through social media, and ignoring significant aspects of the group's work. In fact, there are many important things that PETA does that aren't even touched on in the current article.Wilbur777 (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The net result is that it appears biased. If there are notable organizations who publish material, which speaks negatively of the PETA organization then they should be included, not to be "fair" to those organizations you perceive to be hostile, but because our project aims to dispassionately include notable information related to the subjects of articles based solely on the fact that it is notable and due in terms of weight of text. I doubt, given your admission of a COI and a passionate involvement with the subject that you are fully able to write from a neutral stance, and should probably make greater use of the talk page to suggest edits and achieve consensus before making an edit. (this is putting it lightly). If you continue to generate warnings for edit warring, like the ones above, it's likely that you'll end up being topic banned, which depending on how broad the ban is, might include all articles (broadly construed) to do with animal rights. Edaham (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Given what I've said above, the "warning" here is neither appropriate nor necessary. Also, I think you were more on the money with "sympathetic" than with "biased." My edits were in good faith and attempted to follow the rules so far as I understood and interpreted them. I've also made many edits to music articles because I am passionately involved with that subject, too. Should that be considered a liability? Users are most likely to edit articles pertaining to subjects that they know and care about. And it's not simply that I "perceive" that groups such as the Center for Organizational Research and Education are hostile. It's a matter of public record that this group devotes considerable resources to attacking PETA, the Humane Society, and other nonprofits and that it runs a highly deceptive website called "PETAKillsAnimals.org."Wilbur777 (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * it’s not a warning, it’s just what happens from time to time. I said the editor who wrote it seems sympathetic. The article seems biased. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Above you mentioned a COI. That’s different from just being passionate about something. I listen avidly to Dead or alive. I’m not their publicist. I once removed a non-notable unfavorable review from The Cranberries article. That was a biased edit, but not one which was due to a COI. I’m not affiliated with them. You should carefully consider contributing to articles concerning subjects with which you are affiliated. That’s what the policy means. If outright hostile organizations who state that PETA should be tarred, feathered and dragged backwards through a hedge are notable, then as a Wikipedia editor, you should be willing to include such information in an article if it’s relevant. That’s what dispassionate means. If you find yourself unable to do that because of strong feelings for a subject, it’s also a good idea to use the talk page more to get consensus for edits. Edaham (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar with the policy now and have stated that I will abide by it. And I was responding to your statement about "a passionate involvement with the subject." CORE is mentioned in the PETA article by its former name, the CCF. I have no problem with mentioning this group, so long as it's properly identified as a hostile industry front group that spreads misleading and outright false disinformation. Wilbur777 (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)