User talk:Historyhorror

Drop me a comment

Alternate/sock account

Are you going to place a notice on the user page at User:Firstcomp soon? I would recommend that you do it quickly and retire it, and then only use this one. Doing so will save you a lot of grief down the road. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Historyhorror (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good start, but you need to also disassociate yourself from it as an account you would use. That shouldn't normally happen. Right now you're simply admitting to having a sock account, and that's not allowed, except under special circumstances. Also make sure the link to this account is an active/working link. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Historyhorror (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brangifer, thanks for that. Also, Historyhorror, if you lose your password again, Wikipedia gives you the option of resetting your password. If you ever need to create a new Wikipedia account, you should immediately note on that account's user page that you are Historyhorror...unless you have an alternate account for one of the legitimate reasons named at WP:SOCK#LEGIT or because you are making a WP:Clean start (notice, however, that WP:Clean start requires you to abandon previous editing areas). When I saw this edit you made to the Michael Jackson article earlier the previous hour, I immediately recognized you as Firstcomp, and noted so there in the edit history. I'm also certain that you have been among the IPs edit-warring over Jackson's skin color at the Michael Jackson's health and appearance article, which ticks me off because you have been presenting as different people in those cases. I recently noted here, and at other WikiProjects tagged at the top of that article's talk page, that there is a back-and-forth dispute going at that article with regard to Jackson's skin color. I'm not sure why you have suddenly taken that skin-color aspect to the Michael Jackson article, but you surely must know that there are far more people watching that article and that therefore the same level of WP:Disruption will not be tolerated there. Flyer22 (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the helpful suggestions. I think it's great that we've been able to work so constructively on the MJ article(s), providing a very balanced summary Historyhorror (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

You have edit warred and violated WP:3RR on Jenny McCarthy, performing four reverts in 10 hours by using two different accounts, Firstcomp and Historyhorror, as you acknowledged here. I can't find any WP:3RR warning on either of your talkpages, so I will assume good faith that you didn't know edit warring is a blockable offense, or just how much Wikipedia frowns on the use of socks that aren't clearly marked as yours. But if you do any of it again, you may be blocked from editing. Please study the edit warring policy. Happy editing! Bishonen | talk 03:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

it was a different edit in a different section of the article which was moved to compromise with you. Why do you continue to threaten me instead of joining me in compromise and attempting to improve edits instead of blindly reverting them? Historyhorror (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Bishonen is an administrator who hasn't even reverted you. I'm surprised about that! I'm leaving it for someone else to deal with, but it shouldn't be allowed to stand in its current state. There are several issues about your edits:

You have stated more than once: "you can't keep the article only negative". Well, that is neither true nor relevant, and not a policy based argument. We follow the sources. The inclusion of negative material, when it exists in RS, is a requirement of NPOV. If she doesn't want negative material in the article, she shouldn't engage in dubious and dangerous behavior. Bill Gates has accused Andrew Wakefield, someone whom she defends, of telling "a lie that's killed thousands of kids." Her defense of him and repetition of that lie makes her an accomplice, enough for a website to be named after her, which keeps track of vaccine preventable deaths.
The source you use does not say anything about a "record". You can't embellish on what a source says. That's OR. I'll let someone else fix that.
Your latest edit also introduced some very controversial stuff which is potentially dangerous because it uncritically reproduces her dangerous POV on vaccines. That subject is already covered, and she should not be allowed to use this article for promotion of such a fringe POV. Her POV is documented per NPOV, and that's all that can be allowed per WP:MEDRS.

The reason I'm not fixing this stuff is that I think I've done enough there for one night/day. Others need to deal with it, because something does need to be done. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and the inclusion of positive material, when it exists is RS, a requirement of NPOV. I removed the word "record". I uncritically reproduced her dangerous POV because she did, without any push back on Howard Stern. just reporting what happened, I added this to show a recent example of her views and in response to the recent criticism. However I agree that we should not give a fringe view the last word, so I just now added an even more recent comment by bill gates Historyhorror (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Jenny McCarthy. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 16:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson health and appearance

I just added a scientific source in the section "skin color" that is not related to Michael Jackson at all. That's not "white-washing". None of the sources you stated directly or indirectly is really qualified in any medical field. I did not delete the text you brought back, so you can't say I'm white-washinng anybody. I just offered other aspects. Did you concern yourself with my work before deleting it?Quaffel (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC) The text you brought back was removed by several users and not at once. If you want to mention that vitiligo can be caused willfully there's no need to delete the text completly. The text never said how it was caused. But your text only suggests it was caused willfully. I added sources dealing in general with vitiligo and those relating to Michael Jackson that explain how vitiligo patients deal with their desease and that he did the same. Quaffel (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Historyhorror the topic is covereed now in a FACTUAL way. Your stuff is biased nonsense which has been removed several times by several editors. And you keep insisting on it. That's not my understanding of a consense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talk • contribs) 06:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I love MJ as much as you do, but this is an encyclopedia, not a fan club. We can't removed well sourced material just because they don't flatter MJ. Maureen Orth is an elite journalist reporting in a top publication about statements made under oath about what MJ actually said by a maid who worked with him intimately. That kind of unique insight is invaluable, as are comments by a man as eminent and close to MJ as Quincy Jones. I think it's great that you and I have been working so constructively to show a complete picture. Let's keep it complete. Historyhorror (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit warring at Jenny McCarthy

I really doubt that Bishonen is going to be happy to see that, after your block, you are engaged in slow edit warring (not violating 3rr, but still pursuing the same agenda over longer time). That isn't tolerated here. When you fail to get your will, and get blocked for attempting to force it, and then get back from your block, you don't have a right, with your very first edit (!) to resume the same behavior. You should have learned your lesson and only stuck to discussion until a consensus was reached, but no, you absolutely had to try that disputed edit again! Another, longer, block is in order, and possibly a topic ban. You seem obsessed with promoting Jenny McCarthy's nonsense.

You seem to fail to understand the difference between documenting her pseudoscientific and dangerous POV, and to actually dwelling on it to the point of allowing her to give instructions which mislead parents and endanger even more children. As Bill Gates clearly stated, speaking of Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent research: "...it's an absolute lie that has killed thousands of kids." She defends Wakefield and repeats his nonsense, and that makes her complicit in the deaths of those "thousands of kids," so you really need to be careful about what you add to her article.

We document lots of nonsense here, but advocacy for it is not allowed, and that's what you're doing. We state the nonsense plainly, but we don't advocate it, glorify it, or allow it to stand alone as if it were true. We always make sure that the mainstream scientific POV on the subject gets the due weight it deserves, which is to overwhelm and debunk the fringe views expressed.

Readers must be able to clearly see that there is a difference between the amateurish, nonsensical, and dangerous views of an ex Playmate, who claims she got her education from "Google University", and the mainstream scientific consensus, proven through abundant research. We don't seek a false balance on such issues. That's not what NPOV means. You really need to stay away from this subject until you understand how we apply policy when dealing with fringe issues. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brangifer is right, I was worried to see you repeating one of the very reverts that got you blocked, as soon as you got back from the block. I hope you took the opportunity to read WP:3RR, and to note especially that the bright-line 3RR rule is not an entitlement to revert a page three times in 24 hours. Any edit warring is blockable, and any appearance of "gaming" the 24-hour rule certainly will lead to a block. Read all about it here. Brangifer is an experienced editor who's giving you good advice above. Please click on his links with regard to advocacy and false balance. Another useful policy is due and undue weight, which is part of Neutral point of view, one of Wikipedia's core policies. I won't block you right now but give you (another) chance to absorb these things. Please do, because you really are on notice now. If there has to be another block, it'll be longer. Bishonen | talk 14:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I agree 100% that her views are dangerous and we must make sure readers know that. That's why I was the only person to support brangifer[1] in the article's talk page against those who want to greatly reduce all scientific criticism. It's also why I added a line (which someone removed) about Bill Gates setting the record straight.[2]

But because anti-vaccine views are so dangerous, I don't want the article libelously implying that she's categorically anti vaccine or that she straight up believes vaccines cause autism. As she explained to Ellen, her views are more nuanced than that.

Now granted, her views are still incredibly dangerous and false and we should never minimize that, but by failing to document the nuance, the article is libeling her as even more extreme than she really is, thus it's important to include that quote showing exactly what she is saying.

But because what she's really saying is so dangerous, I agree with you both 100% that we should not glamorize it, and I really appreciate your efforts to prevent that. But there's a difference between glamorizing her views and documenting the fact that they were glamorized. By failing to document the enthusiastic mainstream praise McCarthy's views got, we libel her as a pariah. So I feel the Ellen appearance is so useful because it (1) shows her expressing the great nuance of her false and dangerous views, and (2) documents how glamorized those false and dangerous views were. I think it's possible to make clear how false and dangerous her views are while still accurately reporting how nuanced and supported her opinion was. We don't have to distort and whitewash history. So if I rewrote the Ellen section, making clear that her views are discredited, perhaps we can reach a compromise because you're clearly both very responsible editors and I agree with your concerns 100% Historyhorror (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Michael Jackson may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

are getting higher. His eyes are getting wider every time. His cheekbones are getting bigger."<ref>{{cite web|author=Page 2 of 2 |url=http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Cosmetic/story?id=131910&page=2#.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monkey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Funky Monkey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Michael Jackson's health and appearance". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 April 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 11:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Michael Jackson's health and appearance, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)