This is an archive of past discussions with User:Very Polite Person. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Semiconductor Bloch equations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quantum theory. 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.)
WP:CITEVAR specifies changing where the references are defined, e.g., moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist as one of the citation variations to avoid changing without consensus. Please undo that change you made to Luis Elizondo, thanks. Schazjmd(talk)17:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I hope you are not offended by my asking these questions, but the combination of your prolific and rapid editing, along with article creation, has made them emerge in my mind. Firstly, have you ever edited the English Wikipedia as a user name/account other than Very Polite Person? If so, what was that user name/account? PerWP:SOCK there are certainly valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts. Doing so, however, is atypical and often disruptive. For the record I have only ever edited enWP as JoJo Anthrax. Thanks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
IP editing here and there and reading mainly, but I've used Wikimedia and similar tools and written cited (like here or other contexts) reference materials many times in the past in various professional roles. It's not the most complicated process, learning the various local specific rules aside. I tend to edit in bursts when I have time for this hobby. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
That isn't a direct answer to either of my questions. But I do recognize that you are not obligated to answer them. At least not here, and not now. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Also not a direct answer to my questions. I again recognize that you are not obligated to answer them. That you are unwilling to answer them directly, however, seems odd. I will drop it for now. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
"Mainly" was just an expression. I'd see an error or type somewhere over the years (I didn't keep track) and like many people just tweak it. Nothing remarkable. Can I ask why you are asking or can you please clarify if there any issues with my editing?
Why did you call out my creation of two articles in National Security Space Association and Tip and cue? I also substantially expanded a few to where I basically 'made' them perhaps; such as this, this, and this. Like I said on Talk:Luis Elizondo, I enjoy making comprehensive pages of the sort I would read myself.
Is this related to the articles I have focused on and their subject matter?
I hadn't noticed any similar inquiries of other editors on their talk pages, and I have an allergy to not understanding anything at all, so I am asking for you to explain so that I can understand. Thanks! -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I intend this to be my final post to this thread. I explained my motivation for asking those two questions - which I answered about myself - in my initial post to this thread. I will do so again here. In my perhaps limited experience few if any new, or near-new, editors engage in the prolific and rapid editing/commenting that you have displayed. When such editing occurs in an article related to a contentious topic(s) (see WP:CTOP, including BLP and PS/fringe), it is not unreasonable to ask that new editor if they have ever edited enWP using another name/account. I have not accused you of doing anything wrong. Rather, I asked you two simple questions that you could answer succinctly and directly. You have chosen not to do so, and as I wrote above I have chosen to drop it. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks? I have no idea what to make of this line of inquiry overall. As an editor, should I scrutinize anyone who begins editing a "contentius" topic they have not previously? What sorts of things that are problematic should I look for? If I find them, where or how to whom should I report them? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Home page is fine, of course. As for Elizondo, the May 2020 AfD decision to redirect his Wikipedia article (which I did not participate in) was in my view problematic, and his BLP finally restored thanks largely to the Cox/Sarasota news article. Over the years, in my editing I have striven for neutrality in this article, and as you now know I consider your recent work on it a huge step forward. The Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program Wikipedia article, which I started, has had similar problems. Jusdafax (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm not gonna lie that I'm not feeling ready to jump into a third fire here at the moment. I went into Luis Elizondo after looking him up after seeing stuff about his book, and when I came in I found this and it seemed like a good idea to help fix it, after a large number of editors got into a fight to keep that unsourced thing in the article. Then my habit of wanting all references to be super tidy... and noticing the sources weren't mentioning the text, and here we are. Elizondo and Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act, that I saw there was sourcing tying Elizondo to (Daily Mail, so not usable) led to writing that article, as it was up my alley of interested topics, like Born secret and Invention Secrecy Act. I follow topics that could intersect with AATIP, but I'm good now with these two. I still want to get back to this re-write of Field propulsion and then I have a couple other more nerdy articles to make. Thanks again. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. That whole UAPDA thing is beyond fascinating to me on the legal aspects, having followed things like Born secret and the Invention Secrecy Act (and others similar)... I cannot say I recall ever seeing a United States law that attacked the question of declassifying something that apparently... does not exist? The court cases alone are going to be 'delicious' from a legal point of view for that eminent domain angle. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Falsely accusing people
Please, when you accuse people, be very careful that you use an exact quote. It is clearly not polite to accuse someone based on something they did not say. Polygnotus (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to anyWikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.
All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
You are the one refusing to comply with WP:BLP, which requires neutral sources. And you falsely accused me. Now you are trying to switch topics because you figured out that I didn't actually say what you said I said. You have 2 options, find a diff where I called him a liar or you can post a retraction and apologize for falsely accusing me. After you've apologized and calmed down I can help you improve the article, because there is a lot of work to be done. Polygnotus (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
I am rather calm hm, then why do you respond like this. your WP:BLP violation See law of holes. And we both know that you can't use a UFO activist as a reliable source on a BLP about UFOs. Right? Because if you genuinely were not aware of that then that might be a problem. I am still waiting for that retraction and apology. Polygnotus (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Because a WP:BLP subject has WP:FRINGE aspects in no way makes the entire article, first to last character of text, subject to some higher level of WP:FRINGE requirements, unless we want to call articles like Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan as WP:FRINGE, as they both also reported "UFO sightings"; both spoke more than a few times on the topic, and Reagan even brought it up at the United Nations.
The sourcing on Luis Elizondo we use Cox for is not WP:FRINGE related and has nothing to do whatsoever with his UFO belief system.
I will not respond to you again here if you attempt again to change the subject again. I will proceed directly next to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and no longer engage you on this page on this topic if attempt change the subject once more. Will you, or will you not, remove, redact or edit your calling the WP:BLP subject a liar on their own talk page? If you say no or refuse on your next response, if any, WP:DISPUTE is next. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you being blocked from editing—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I have been blocked for trying to apply WP:BLP to the article Luis Elizondo. This came about after I filed a complaint on the BLP noticeboard, here, for a user insulting the BLP subject on their talk page. WP:BLP is explicit in any plain text reading that the BLP rules apply with full force/equally to the talk page of BLP subjects. This was combined with attempts to remove WP:NPOV content on the article's lede by other users, which itself introduces a WP:BLP issue, as seen here on this edit. The talk page is filled with line-by-line analysis that shows the version I cited on the revert using WP:3RRBLP is, in fact, the WP:BLP compliant one, which reflects the sources 100% accurately. So, I appear to have been blocked for explicitly following the WP:BLP rule, which says outright: unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. My WP:3RRBLP reverts are supported by WP:BLP, as they introduced poorly sourced neutral to questionable content which, per WP:BLP, must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I have no history whatsoever of any issues or complaints, until I attempted to first gently them firmly apply WP:BLP here, after initial talk page attempts were rebuked and ignored. The talk page history there will show me going overboard to build consensus over the past few weeks and removing requested content. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
A "plain text reading" of BLP would also indicate that the obligation to remove content only applies to, well, removing content. In no way could adding the words "but confirmed by others" be considered removing something. The point is that we cannot make statements that aren't sourced, and in this case, the statements are sourced: Pentagon officials did contest his claims, the sources support that, and therefore this isn't a BLP violation, even if you're right and those contentions are lacking context. If this were an actual BLP violation, you would have wanted to remove that sentence entirely; the fact that you didn't, presumably because the sources support it at least to an extent, indicates this is not a serious BLP violation requiring 3RRBLP.
BLP is an emergency tool, to prevent Wikipedia from making assertions without basis in fact or sources (think Joe Schmo is a murderer.{{cn}}). It is not a license for you to edit-war to align an article however you want. You cite WP:3RRBLP above, so presumably you continued reading and found the second sentence there: What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. That's something you should've taken heed of. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 20:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC) PS: Lest I be misinterpreted, I'm sure there is some kind of context where removing content constitutes a 3RR-worthy BLP violation, and restoring it is the right corrective action to take. But this ain't it. Writ Keeper⚇♔21:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I don't know if you want my help but I'll give it a try because you are a good faith user and no one else will. Look, the unblock requests are to show that you understand the reason for the block and how to avoid that in the future. Please read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. So basically what they want you to say is: I understand that I should not do x because of y. I will avoid doing x in the future.. Cullen helpfully listed the things that went wrong above. So if you want to get unblocked during the week it requires some self-reflection, how did it end up like this, what did I do wrong, how could I have avoided this. Stubbornness is not rewarded, and any unblock request that says "but I was right and they were wrong" will simply be closed. If you are unable to write a better unblock request, which is not uncommon, just wait a week and avoid making the same mistakes again. Polygnotus (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Is every piece of text in an article supposed to be 100% WP:BLP compliant at all times, for a BLP article? Does the WP:BLP policy say we are to remove "unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"?
The only help I want is for strict enforcement of WP:BLP and help for the same on an article that I stumbled into and found years of egegrious and tolerated WP:BLP violations all over the article's version histories and talk pages. I have bent over backwards repeatedly on that page over the past three weeks to build consensus and source every single relevant sentence to the word for absolute WP:BLP compliance. The version that I restored is fully WP:BLP compliant and the one you and the others edit warred to retain is a WP:BLP violation for the lede, which says a completely different thing from the rest of the ultra-sourced article that I helped rebuild.
The Article, with impeccable and nearly over the top sourcing, has 5-6 rock-solid WP:RS saying this WP:BLP subject worked for a certain government department, including a United States Senator who twice confirmed it, and the Pentagon themselves confirming he worked there with those words to the news media in solid WP:RS, and acknowledges with equally solid negative sourcing that at least one (1) Pentagon staff member disputed this, and that two (2) journalists questioned it.
The Lede, with the same sourcing, only says, flat out, that his holding the government position was "contested".
You should check out Bob Lazar. United States senators are, on average, not reliable sources of information. I don't really want to debate BLP stuff because it is rather boring, but this is how the cookie crumbles, and you can hopefully use my advice above to get unblocked, or just wait a week. But whatever you do, please do not repeat the same mistakes. One of the hardest lessons I had to learn in life is that the fact that I am right is often not enough, and I still struggle with that some days. A very literal and rigid interpretation of the rules is incompatible with vague fuzzy (and often even hypocritical) humans. This is why programming is fun. Polygnotus (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White confirmed to POLITICO that the program existed and was run by Elizondo.
But that is omitted repeatedly from the article lede, which puts false WP:BLP violating information live into Luis Elizondo that his role there was simply "contested", the end. So that is why I reverted using WP:3RRBLP and made such a fuss, after the (linked above) extensive history of egregious WP:BLP violations around this article. I stand by the explicitly authorized by WP:BLP reverts, where BLP says, again, quote: unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I was based on this apparently blocked on incomplete and incorrect information, when I was adhering to and doing functions on this site empowered for any user to do by and in accordance with WP:BLP. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
@Writ Keeper: -- apologies if this isn't the right way to do this, but I just wanted to show you one thing as I think in the sudden chaos that unfurled... there is still a misunderstanding. I just wanted to give you this context. You wrote...
In no way could adding the words "but confirmed by others" be considered removing something.
That's actually not what happened, but I can see how it got hard to track from so many edits flying everywhere. If nothing else, could you help me to understand this, please?
Very short version: I was the one adding words back to the lede that made the article WP:BLP compliant; the others were removing words that I believe made the article fail WP:BLP as BLP is written.
It says, which matches 100% to all sourcing in the article with very high precision:
Elizondo's statements about his Pentagon role with AATIP have been contested by some reporters and Pentagon officials, but confirmed by others.[1][2][3][4][5]
Elizondo's statements about his Pentagon role with AATIP have been contested by Pentagon officials.[1][2][3][4][5]
The "confirmed by others" version matches to sourcing 100% as seen in the section Luis Elizondo#Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. By them removing those few words, it puts the Lede at opposite odds with the body, and turns the "contested" nature of the body, which is factual and sourced to an airtight level from multiple sources, including the Pentagon themselves, into a lede that implies "Pentagon officials" contested it, the end, which is not true. The Pentagon (and others in government) confirmed his role, flat out, full stop. One single spokesperson gave an answer years later that didn't deny his involvement, but said he had no stake in that office while he worked at a different office. There is no WP:RS anywhere that I've found, and believe me, I've looked, that says he didn't work there. The lede implies he did not or lied, when the The Pentagon on-the-record definitively said he did, as documented heavily by various WP:RS.
I began to make a fuss on the BLP noticeboard after finding flat out insults to the subject on the talk page, and then people modifying the lede from the neutral form into a negative one, in opposition to all sourcing we have. If I am reading this all wrong against WP:BLP, I honestly and genuinely do not see how the present reduced lead is not a WP:BLP violation in this context. I realize this is a complex mess, but the sourcing is honestly dead simple and I went out of my way (see Talk there) to document the hell out of this. I don't see this as a content dispute but a WP:BLP one--there is no content to dispute in that sense. Here is my explanation on the talk page there, where I've been all over asking for opinions and consensus non-stop: Talk:Luis Elizondo#The "AATIP" question and the fact journalists and Pentagon officials give conflicting info versus WP:BLP. If curious or helpful, this section on the article talk page gets into the extreme weeds of my BLP reasoning/logic, sourcing analysis per-source, and why my version is WP:BLP compliant while the other is not.
The mess is complex and impossible to sound byte. There is an article with a documented years-long history of (to my regret not seeing before getting involved) open wars and tolerated WP:BLP violations on the Article and Talk page. The article was a rolling WP:BLP violation for multiple years. Users were ignoring any discussions and changing the lede to not say what the article body and sources did, turning the extremely neutral article section into a negatively framed problematic lede with sourcing that did not match the text in the lede. WP:BLP says questionable or problematic content with problematic sourcing has to be removed.
I am asking for clear understanding of how it is not a WP:BLP violation for the lede to extract any neutrality on a key point of the article, and that needed the context and links to make any sense at all.
On Wikipedia it is incredibly important to be concise and to know when to move on. If you run into trouble, drop the subject and perhaps ask for clarification later (wait at least a week or 2 for things to die down) but by then it will no longer seem important. For now, assume that admins know what they are doing and decide if you want to make an unblock request in a day or two using the format I mentioned above or just wait a week. I admit that Wikipedia is very confusing at first (at least it was for me at points) but if you don't let that discourage you it is a very valuable resource and fun activity. Polygnotus (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
You seem to have misunderstood my point. I know you added back the language, and what I'm saying is, the act of correcting a BLP violation, in the context of things like 3RRBLP, will almost always consist of removing language, not adding it. While it's certainly not impossible for a BLP correction to involve adding or restoring content, it's a red flag. Not every problem with an article about a living person is a BLP violation, and not every instance of missing context or insufficient interpretation of a source on such an article justifies edit-warring; this is why that second sentence of 3RRBLP is there. It's a matter of degree. Writ Keeper⚇♔21:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining this. I think it finally makes sense. If it matters, I guess--can I ask now again for unblock if I stay off from editing the page in question and just discuss on talk? I have plenty of other stuff I would still like to work on. If not, can I work on article drafts/resarch in my space in the meanwhile? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
This is a positive sign, for sure, and you are certainly welcome to ask for an unblock again (by using another {{unblock}} template), but keep in mind that the BLP/edit warring wasn't the only reason cited in the block; you'll want to touch on those issues, how you understand them and will avoid them in the future, for the unblock appeal to be successful. Good luck! Writ Keeper⚇♔12:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Very sorry to see all this. 3RR is indeed a bright line here. Based on my observations over the years, I’m going to simply and respectfully suggest you walk away from further any edits on this Talk page for the week duration of the block. Once your block expires, you’ll be able to take up the issues you’ve pointed out further, but I’d additionally suggest that, if you do so, that you review WP:CON, particularly the section on “Pitfalls and errors.” Best wishes, Jusdafax (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abigail Becker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dutch.
