User_talk:CSRstaff References

Welcome!

Hello, CSRstaff, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Hyacinth ( talk) 02:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply

October 2015

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to John Two Hawks. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Your username and edit history indicate a conflict of interest, therefore you should not be editing this article unless it's solely to revert vandalism. - CorbieV^☊ ☼ 02:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello Corbie. We did not add promotional material to the John Two-Hawks Wikipedia. We merely removed information that was incorrect, and vandalism oriented, and only added a missing item (the 'Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee' film and soundtrack) and the appropriate reference notations to verify that he is credited for his contribution to the film and soundtrack. Our sole reason for being here is to revert vandalism from John's Wikipedia page, as it has been edited time and again by nefarious people who seek to do him harm. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, so on the rare occasions we do have to edit, it is our only intention to restore the page to a non-jaded, generic info page. Here is a direct quote from the Wikipedia BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) guidelines page: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." We are not Wikipedia experts, so forgive us our inability to use all the proper tools! CSRstaff ( talk) 07:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry but what you removed was not vandalism. You must cite your content, and the sources you added do not mention Two Hawks. Also, as Two Hawks is his stage name, and his birth name is a matter of public record, there is no reason to hide this. You have a WP:COI here, and these edits are inappropriate. - CorbieV^☊ ☼ 16:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at John Two Hawks, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. - CorbieV^☊ ☼ 16:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello again Corbie. What we have and will continue to remove from this Wikipedia page are the items that are: 'sensationalist', 'titillating', and 'tabloid' in nature, as well as items that are personal, private and incorrect. All things that Wikipedia's guidelines for 'Biographies of Living Persons' say are inappropriate. We are not in any way engaging in 'disruptive editing', in fact, we are trying to keep in step with Wikipedia's BLP guidelines, which suggest avoiding these things. You, on the other hand, are not. You seem to be a wiki-wiz who, for whatever reason, is intent on rewriting this wiki-page biography in such a way as to paint a living person in a negative light. Wikipedia clearly discourages these types of edits. It is not up to you to decide what is private, personal or harmful and what is not, for someone you do not know. It is up to all wiki-editors to, as Wikipedia states: 'write conservatively' about living people. Therefore, the onus is on all editors to 'consider the possibility of harm to living subjects' when editing their biographies, and steer clear of anything that could be potentially harmful, personal, private, sensationalist, titillating or incorrect. Go rent the movie 'Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee' and watch the credits, and you will see that John Two-Hawks is credited for his musical contribution! We are only here to help make sure that this page is not edited with ill intent, and that no harm is done to a living person. And so, we are going to edit it again, and kindly ask you to leave it be. Thanks. CSRstaff ( talk) 06:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at John Two-Hawks. WP:COI - CorbieV^☊ ☼ 17:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

We realize you are an 'Administrator' at Wikipedia, and that being an Admin affords you a certain degree of power here. It seems that we now find ourselves in a 'content war', as Wiki terms it. We did not want this. We sincerely only wanted our small edits to this page to help the content to stay within the Wiki BLP guidelines. As it currently sits it does not. We are perplexed as to why you seem so intent on having the content your way, with seemingly no regard for our perspective and very little explanation. Can you explain? Wiki suggests that, when there is a disagreement about content, we should specify which content is causing an issue, and explain it. We have tried to do that, all to no avail. Right from the start it seemed you were angry about our edits. The threat to block us is really a moot point at this juncture, as our edits to the page have all been reverted by you anyway, so we have, in essence, already been blocked. We are totally confused as to why you would say that our last edit had anything in it that was "using Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising". Nothing in our last edit was even remotely "soapboxing, promotion or advertising". We really thought we had made a good edit, removing content considered harmful by Wikipedia's BLP guidelines, and finally succeeding at giving a proper citation for a line of added content! We worked hard to get that right! We are sincerely puzzled as to why you chose to revert our edit again. Perhaps you can elaborate on how you came to make that decision? We see that you have made over 11,000 edits on Wikipedia. You have spent a lot of time here! So, what is your interest in this particular page? And why do you seem to be so intent on controlling the content? CSRstaff ( talk) 04:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

All Wikipedians are tasked with keeping promotional material out of the 'pedia. Why do you consider the artist's birth name "harmful content"? WP is not for promotion of yourself or your employees, and coverage of critical response is pretty standard. Again: You have WP:COI. I will check the Emmy one, but the Grammy links you reverted to were cut because they don't mention the artist. - CorbieV^☊ ☼ 15:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I checked the links and fixed the content about the 2007 soundtrack contribution. See, the way WP works, is that whether you are Mr. Hill or Mrs. Hill or someone they hired, you are too close to the subject to contribute objectively. If the artist is notable, others will find the article and work on it, as I did. You can suggest edits on the talk page of the article, but you may not make those edits yourself. Do you understand now? - CorbieV^☊ ☼ 16:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

August 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at John Two-Hawks. Removing the subject's real name is POV pushing and part of the issues with misrepresentation in this article. As you have COI, it's not appropriate. You have already been warned about this. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 03:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC) reply