User talk:Wilfred Brown

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 05:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 05:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources can't be our articles and should discuss the subject
Please read WP:RS and NOR. Thanks. now you've been reverted by two editors. This is not vandalism. Doug Weller talk 05:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk pages
Please see wp:talk page guidelines for discussions on talk pages and formatting. Use wp:Indentation for proper talk threading. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI: bad licenses on two images in article
Missing any license on one, the second "pre-1923" doesn't fit having a 1948 flag in the image. You might consider tagging it as Non-free content. Jim1138 (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * commons:File:Heritage_of_the_Anglo-Saxon_Race.jpg
 * commons:File:When Russia Bombs Germany 1941.jpg

April 2017
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to When Russia Bombs Germany (1940), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you.  Velella  Velella Talk 22:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

British-Israel
Hi, where do you stand on the topic of British-Israel? Scynthian (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I stand on the truth, whatever it is.


 * And Truth is a very tricky concept. Which is one reason why are articles aren't meant to be vehicles of truth but represent what reliable sources have to say in relation to their significance. You might want to read Verifiability, not truth. Doug Weller  talk 19:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * And you might want to read up on 'Due and undue weight' under WP:NPOV Wilfred Brown (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Besides. At no point have I published my personal belief. This article is clearly unbalanced.. In the second paragraph, it criticizes the 'central tenets', and yet the central tenets are barely described, if described at all. That's what I intent to change. Get out the BI doctrines, then feel free to critique all you want. Wilfred Brown (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Why not be open about your personal belief? Remember the saying don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs? 166833 edits since: 2006-04-23. I don't think you get WP:UNDUE. I'd like to get the central tenets right myself, move them up as well. Doug Weller  talk 16:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Please "reuse" references
See help:footnotes. Example: I combined/reused two refs here. Also, please add "|ISBN=" and/or "|ASIN=" (Amazon number), publisher, and date. I retrieved the ASIN from Amazon.com See template:cite book for parameter details. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah thanks. I was wondering how to do that. Wilfred Brown (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Watch the videos at Meetup/UMassAmherst/Intro to Wikipedia. Doug Weller  talk 14:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge suggestion for When Russia Bombs Germany
Basically I'm suggesting this be turned into a redirect to the author, leaving the title (and another redirect without the year would be a good idea). There's already more about this book in Ferris's article then in the stub. The merge suggestion means that there will be a discussion, it's not a merge I'm making myself even though it's the logical thing to do. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Just noticed that Ferris's article was created by a thoroughly unpleasant sock puppet, see Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist/Archive. Unpleasant in that he was a pretty nasty person. Probably the least worst thing he did was call people who disagreed with him an "anti-white racist". He and his socks edited and created a number of BI related articles, possibly most of them. Doug Weller  talk 18:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Please sign and indent your talk
I just spent ten minutes cleaning up your talk on talk:British Israelism here Would you please format, indent, and sign your talk properly? See above Use wp:show preview to verify that your edit is going to work before saving? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't attack other editors
See wp:No personal attacks. You know better than to do this. The next time you try something like this, I will open ticket on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Jim1138 (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on talk:British Israelism. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Jim1138 (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Reverting sockpuppet edits is standard and not a reflection of anything else. I made it clear in the edit summaries. Doug Weller  talk 05:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "Putting the "suspected sock puppet" tag on a talk page or calling them a "sock puppet" on any talk page is considered uncivil, so don't do it." -- Wikipedia

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia
Hi Wilfred Brown. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with regular editing. Your edits to date are all about various aspects of British Israelism, and there is at least one representative of a British Israelism organization active in Wikipedia now. 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.

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 (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with British Israelism organizations, directly or through a third party (e.g. a PR agency or the like)? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk further about how COI is managed in Wikipedia, and then I can give you some more orientation to how this place works if you like. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, none, nada. Wilfred Brown (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering.
 * Your account is what we call a WP:SPA, and you have brought a more or less singular, fiercely argued perspective to the discussion.   Please do read WP:SPA to get a sense of how the community tends to respond to accounts like yours.   Please also take a few minutes and read WP:YESPOV (a really essential part of the NPOV policy), WP:NOTADVOCACY (part of the "NOT" policy which is kind of the constitution of WP - what WP is, and what it is not), and the helpful essay, WP:ADVOCACY.   We really do look for all editors to strive to edit neutrally, which means finding the highest quality independent, secondary sources (both aspects  -- independence, and secondary -- are important!)  and summarizing them.   I hope that all makes sense.  If not, please ask!  Otherwise, happy editing. Jytdog (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

You need to know someone's raised a discussion about BI at the Administrators Notice Board/incidents
See WP:ANI Doug Weller talk 08:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at British Israelism 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) 18:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Diffs -- -- Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * diff 05:07, 29 April 2017 removing cn tag that had been placed here and adding contentious ref
 * diff 07:13, 29 April 2017 removing cn tag added here (same as above) and adding contentious ref
 * dif 16:29, 29 April 2017 revert to restore contentious refs
 * diff 18:42, 29 April 2017 revert to restore contentious refs
 * Contentious ref? See talk.
 * This is about your behavior. You already have four reverts and are blockable.  I warned you above to be careful about editing aggressively to advocate for anything in Wikipedia.  If you keep behaving this way you will end up losing editing privileges.  Really - please read the links I provided above to SPA, ADVOCACY, etc. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're in the wrong on this one. I was merely changing 'my' own edit of primary source, which is acceptable, to an even better reliable secondary source. Your behavior in this matter is questionable. Wilfred Brown (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, there are edit warring diffs just above, clear as day, and if you had continued, you would have been blocked. Period. Do not mistake behavior issues for content issues.  I will not reply here further. Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggested reading
Wikipedia is not a battleground Jim1138 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey
So I mentioned above, that if you pursue an antagonistic course as you advocate for B-I that things are going to get.. rough.

Please learn and follow the basic principles that guide all of us. If you are going to be here, you have to be Wikipedian -- aiming at the mission and following the policies and guidelines. All of the policies and guidelines drive toward using high quality secondary sources, which we summarize in articles. Please abide by that. We all have work that we want to get done with our volunteer time, and taking up people's time trying to argue against basic policies and guidelines is not productive. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you threatening me? Wilfred Brown (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Jim1138 (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:When Russia Bombs Germany.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:When Russia Bombs Germany.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2019
Hello, I'm Catfish Jim and the soapdish. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Picts 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.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  06:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)