User talk:Editaddict

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I have read it before and agree. I am only trying to edit for grammar, consistency and fairness. Not sure how that is a conflict of interest as I am not advertising, publicising or promoting anyone or anything. Editaddict (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict-of-interest editing is not limited to promotion. You're trying to add material about a court case involving a branch of the church to a prominent place in the article's lede (where it doesn't belong anyway, as the lede is supposed to just summarise the article content). If you have any connection with the church, please stick to proposing edits on the article's talk page, following the instructions at

WP:COIREQ. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. I am trying to follow the Wikipedia policy:

Neutrality and verifiability[edit]

Most problems with negative material can be avoided by adhering to standard WP policies, such as

writing in an unbiased way

. When including negative material in an article, some things to check for include:

•    Ensure that the material is supported by

reliable sources

•    Do not present the material in a

way that over-emphasizes

it

•     Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information

to give balance

Please explain to me how it is fair and neutral to leave a criticism without a third party confirmation of a different view. It seems that either both the negative and positive references should be in the lead or neither. Editaddict (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The material in the lede about the lawsuits is summarising the coverage of that issue that's in the article. Inserting material about another case into the lede, when it's not even covered in the article, is the wrong way to go about this. If you want material about the Singapore case added to the article, feel free to propose it on the talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. You are talking about the summary statement about the lawsuits. I am talking about this: "Former members of the church have alleged that it is a

International Christian Church, of covering up sexual abuse of children. Janja Lalich

, an academic expert on cults and coercion, has stated that in her view, the ICOC has at minimum some of the "hallmarks of a cult". "

That is why I inserted the comment there to be fair and balanced on the cult question. Either this comment needs to go or we need to be fair and balanced and include the other comment that also quotes a third party source who found the group to not be a cult. Editaddict (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I found the Singapore info in the article so it can also be included in the summary. Without it, we violate this principle from Wikipedia: "Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information

to give balance" Editaddict (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

That material is also summarising content from the article. You can't just insert something in the lede that's not covered in the article because you think a single legal case from Singapore "balances" expert opinion. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure you read the source article. It quotes someone just as valid as the other expert and it quotes a court decision on it as being defamatory. Do you not want to have it balanced? Editaddict (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to discuss article content. I've explained what you need to do if you want it to be added to the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a wikipedia principle, its almost the opposite of our principle... See

WP:FALSEBALANCE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I see what you are saying and it is true that "every minority view,

to give balance" How is this a problem if we are trying to be fair and neutral? Editaddict (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

And where can I find that principle stated? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. I quoted it in the discussion above. This is the link for WP:NPOV: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight Editaddict (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is International Churches of Christ. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on International Churches of Christ. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a strong conclusion to jump to so quickly. Why is it I am causing an edit war when I revert but its not an edit war when you revert without discussing it with the author? Editaddict (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer my question: Why is it I am causing an edit war when I revert but its not an edit war when you revert without discussing it with the author? Editaddict (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because you were the one seeking to change the article, without first gaining consensus. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Editaddict reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result: ). Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (International Churches of Christ) for disruptive editing.

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 ~~~~}}.  Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Editaddict (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I must confess that I am new to editing on Wikipedia and am a bit confounded by my experience here. I have been a professional editor for many years and have never been treated the way I have been treated here. 1) When I took the suggested edit to the Talk Page, no one responded for 5 days even though they had been rejecting my simple edit and not giving valid reasons. Therefore I noted on that page that I was going to add the edit since no one objected. Then two editors reverted my edits again without valid reasons. One of them got their facts wrong about my suggested edit and the content of the article I was referencing. The other person just made a judgment without any reasoning or answering how my edit violated the WP:NPOV. They were ganging up on the reverts so they wouldn’t violate the three revert rule. 2) I do apologize for not understanding the three revert rule. I thought it was three reverts of an individual. 3) I would appreciate more help from other editors and admins instead of only objection and condemnation. They showed no desire to discuss the application of WP:NPOV and my suggestions. Can you please explain to me how I violated WP:NPOV? No one has done that yet. I am very encouraged by WP stance on NPOV. But this behavior leads me to suspect the other editors are not truly interested in WP:NPOV. Then when I received your admin judgment, it was more of the same. You only made an accusation and did not contact me to hear my side of the story nor help me understand how I had violated WP policy. I am open to hearing that. 4) You mentioned you are open to a reasonable RFPP request. Please tell me how to do that. A search for RFPP on WP resulted in this screenshot: Thank you for your consideration. I am eager to learn and committed to the highest principles of editing. Editaddict (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Editaddict (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you are only blocked from a limited portion of Wikipedia, I am declining to remove the block at this time. You still have the ability to edit other areas of Wikipedia, and certainly adequate ability to read the various policies you have questions about and raise them in locations where you will more likely get a wider audience who can answer (such as WP:Teahouse and WP:Help desk). Once you've gotten a broader understanding of how Wikipedia works, you can ask again to be unblocked. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.