User talk:Jealius

December 2023

Hello, I'm Chaotic Enby. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Richard Lewis (journalist) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 00:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

No, They have not been "undone" because they aren't constructive. They have been undone because people like you dont like him. Please, point out exactly what I posted that wasn't factual and relevant. Jealius (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I had absolutely no idea who Richard Lewis was before today. When patrolling for new edits with a diff browser like Huggle or, in this case, AntiVandal, this happens pretty quickly, and I'm not looking for the journalist's political affiliation to decide whether or not to revert. Here, it was simply a matter of using non-neutral terms in the lead (immediately describing him as an award-winning journalist). ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 01:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Apparently he's an esports journalist who got into a fight with another attendee somewhere? I'm not personally interested in esports, and honestly I'm not going in the rabbit hole of who's at fault here, just reminding you to take care to use neutral language when describing stuff. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 01:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

If that was true you would clearly also have a problem with the fact that his biography starts with controversies and not general accomplishments, but for some reason you don’t. I find it very hard to believe that you can’t see that this biography obviously is written with a negative bias of the man. 87.61.158.34 (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The "for some reason" is that I'm patrolling recent changes. There are hundreds of Wikipedia edits every minute, and checking recent changes for immediate reverts means we don't have time to go in-depth in the history of each article. Again, not a bias against you or this journalist, just how anti-vandalism usually operates. Agree that some stuff (notably the unflattering portrait) should be changed, however. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 01:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Richard Lewis (journalist). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 00:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

How am I vandalizing the post by adding context that is factually true? Jealius (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jealius. You are not vandalizing; however, the edit you are making isn't quite constructive either. We are required to maintain a neutral point of view in our editing of the encyclopedia, and to emphasize in the lead sentence of someone's article that they have won (an) award(s) kind of runs contradictory to that goal. See WP:PUFFERY for more information. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 00:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

in what way is it contrary to that goal. He is an award winning journalist. The most award winning one in his field. You know that this is a hit piece. Not to mention that the fact that controversies aren't in their separate paragraph but right at the top. If you keep blocking me for making this post more nuanced that it clearly is at the moment I will report you for the exact reasons you are accusing me of. Jealius (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention that the picture used on the post clearly is against TOS. But you clearly don't have a problem with that since he looks unflattering? do you? huh...? Jealius (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Whoa, let's ease up a bit! I'm not the editor who had been giving you those vandalism warnings above. I get that you are trying to make the article more balanced. We're all out here trying to improve the encyclopedia. Mentioning awards won is perfectly acceptable; my qualm was with putting "award-winning" up at the very front of the article. I did take another look at the article before your most recent edits, and the way the career section started right from the get-go with him getting fired was... yikes. I need to go to bed shortly (work very early in the morning) but at first glance, your layout rearrangements appear to constitute an improvement. I agree with you that the photo of Lewis in the infobox is rather poor but that may simply be because there isn't a higher-quality image of him that we are allowed to use (see Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Non-free content); or if there is one, then it just hasn't been found and uploaded yet). --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 00:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, AntiVandal labels every non-constructive edits as vandalism, even though what you did doesn't necessarily correspond to that. For the rest, Dylan explained it pretty well! Good luck editing, ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 00:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Materialscientist (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

how do i send the proof that i have permission? Jealius (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did with this edit to Richard Lewis (journalist). Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

what the hell are you on about!? If you actually spent more than 2 seconds reading what I did you would see I didn't add it I moved it to a specific section of its own, which obviously is the norm! if you keep blocking my changes I will report you. This is your warning. Jealius (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I think he's referring to the "Dr. Gonzo" nickname? @Materialscientist: I just did a quick Google search for "richard lewis dr gonzo" and came across multiple instances where "Dr. Gonzo" was used as a nickname for Lewis – including by Lewis himself. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 00:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

that is exactly what I referred to. Used to be his alias in the 2000's. Why that isn't relevant info is beyond me. Jealius (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Richard Lewis photo

Hi @Jealius, I'm starting a new section so you can ask any questions and get help specifically about the photo. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, meaning that photos generally must be free, not under any sort of limited copyright license. In this case, the photo of Lewis comes from what appears to be a promotional photo put together by the esports awards. That means the photo is owned by the esports awards, not you, and likely not Lewis. The only entity that can properly grant permission for use of the photo is the esports award themselves. Alternatively, you could ask Lewis to submit a photo that he himself owns, and we could use that.

Finally, please stop getting upset at the other editors who come onto this page. The way Wikipedia works, editors often review edits on pages they've never seen before. No one has a bias--the vast majority of editor have no idea who Lewis is and frankly, they don't care one way or another about him. However, if you get upset and start threatening people--or "edit warring" (constantly making the same revision over and over)--you will end up blocked pretty quickly. Please don't do that. Work with us, and I'll try to help you improve the article about Lewis. Alyo (chat·edits) 00:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

1. if you take one look at how the article looked before I started editing it you would know a lot of editors have a negative bias. That should be pretty clear considering the Controversies section used to be the first part of the bio.
2. So other people can revert my edit... like someone (maybe you) just did with the Dr. Gonzo nickname and his Website I added, which is factual and useful info in a bio. But when I add it back in it can get me banned. In what world does that make sense?

Jealius (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

1. None of the editors you're talking to now had anything to do with that. However, Wikipedia includes things that have been covered by third-party news sources. Unfortunately, as a little bit of info about how the sausage is made, that often means that journalists--who write the news but are rarely themselves written about--are often undercovered. The fact that Lewis happens to have been involved in this incident in 2015 is thus an outsized amount of the sources discussing him.

2. Yes. It's a policy we have called WP:3RR. Very bluntly, do not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. If multiple other editors are reverting you, that means you need to go to the articles talk page and hash it out through discussion. You are brand new, and while this isn't your fault, you don't yet know the rules and procedures we have to make sure this site functions. If you come in here yelling and complaining that everything is unfair without listening to the editors who have been working here for years, you won't last very long, and that would suck for everyone involved. Alyo (chat·edits) 00:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Well it is easy to argue against something when you keep moving the goal posts. You clearly did removed the website I added and you clearly did reverted the edit where I moved the controversies to a dedicated section. Obviously you didn't take the time to read what I actually had changed before reverting it.

The whole reason why I wanted to edit the article in the first place was exactly because it was written and structured in a negative and biased way. Richard Lewis is an important figure in the space of E-sport and I wanted his page to be a fair representation of him. The fact that I haven't edited or deleted, the content of the controversy section, but simple moved it to a more appropriate localting, should be pretty clear indication that I have no intention of slanting the article in the other direction.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the picture was added specifically to make Lewis look obnoxious, but for some reason that isn't a bias problem to you. The copyright rules are ofc not any of wiki's making but I don't see how you can expect someone to upload pictures of themself to be used in their BIO, and considering you aren't allowed to edit posts about yourself, that could probably also be considered against TOS.

Maybe editors should themselves try and "hash it out through discussion" if that's the norm, instead of just reverting changes to an article about someone they have "no idea who" is. I wanted to add a section about Lewis' connection to the Counter-Strike match fixing scandal. Probably the central story of his journalistic career but at this point I don't think I want to sink more time in to this, considering it will probably just be reverted.

It seems very clear to me that you hold edits, to a standard that the article clearly didn't have in the first place. Jealius (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jealius I'm not moving the goal posts--I'm saying that we haven't even established what the goal posts are because you came in hot and started yelling that everyone was biased against Lewis. I didn't remove the website you added--I just moved it down to the External Links section, where it properly belongs. It seems pretty obvious to me that the picture was added specifically to make Lewis look obnoxious no, the picture is just a random screenshot from this video, because that video happens to have been released under a creative commons license, meaning it is "free" for the purposes of use on Wikipedia. You can see this under the video description where it says "License: Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)". If you'd like, you could scrub through that video and find any screenshot of Lewis that you think is better and replace the photo. Or you could look for other videos with Lewis in them that are released under that same license, and upload screenshots from those.

Finally, just as a note about your last comment, It seems very clear to me that you hold edits, to a standard that the article clearly didn't have in the first place, the issue is that this is an article about a living person. "BLPs", or WP:Biographies of living persons, are indeed held to a much higher standard than other articles, because of the risk of harm involved. What that usually means is that any change you make to a BLP will be very quickly reverted if it's unsourced or even mildly controversial by editors who patrol the Recent Changes page (again, not editors who are biased against Lewis--99% of them will have never heard of him before). I'd love for you to continue editing and helping to build out Lewis's article, but you just have to understand that. It's a lot better if you work a little more slowly, get feedback from me or other editors on the talk page, and then make changes, rather than keep trying to force through the same change over and over (and become justifiably frustrated in the process). Alyo (chat·edits) 15:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)