JustTryintobeJust

Welcome!

Hello, JustTryintobeJust, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Liz, thank you for your message. I just registered as a user, and I am frustrated with the amount of gossip and libelous content on the article and talk page of Craig J. N. de Paulo, a philosopher whom I greatly respect that has influenced me. I welcome your assistance! thank you JustTryintobeJust (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey there, the {{help me}} template is used when you need help with editing or using Wikipedia from anyone. If you wanted to specifically address that user and get thier attention, put {{ping|UserNameHere}} at the start of your message. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 19:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Allthefoxes, I admit there is much to learn. JustTryintobeJust (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome! Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Chicbyaccident! JustTryintobeJust (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.  Bishonen | talk 19:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC).

Thank you for this information. JustTryintobeJust (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Augustinianstudent

You appear to be the same person who formerly edited here as User:Augustinestudent and who edited here as User:SPQR 27BC, and you appear to be the same person who has been editing the article on Craig J. N. de Paulo from various IP addresses. Please confirm that this is true. Please be aware that not answering this truthfully is a violation of our policy, WP:SOCK and can lead to you being blocked. I am watching this page; please reply here. Jytdog (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi, Jytdog. The user has made a declaration here that the IP edits on the article and its talkpage are theirs from before they created this account — a little indirectly, but that's how I read it. They have also declared here that they have never had an account before. So your questions have been answered. If you're not convinced, your next step would be WP:SPI. Bishonen | talk 11:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC).

Hello User:Jytdog, this is the first time I have ever created an account, and I have nothing to do with these other users. JustTryintobeJust (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Bish for pointing those out, and thanks for answering JustTryintobeJust. I have a follow up question to you below Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

HiJustTryintobeJust I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. All your edits to date are about Craig J. N. de Paulo and above you note some relationship with him. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, JustTryintobeJust. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
• instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with de Paulo? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, with please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. You can reply here - I am watching this page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Jytdog, I have absolutely no connection with de Paulo, except that I have read three of his books and a few articles. But, I do not know him, and I have never met him. In fact, I have written on a number of pages, typically that deal with heraldry, Orders of chivalry, ecclesiastical things, philosophy and literature, all of which are my interests. I certainly do not receive any compensation for any of this. I welcome whatever advise you can offer since I would like to become a proficient editor. Thanks!JustTryintobeJust (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'll leave that here, then Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I am picking this up again. You are being way too intense for someone without some connection to the subject. Again, what is your connection to de Paulo and the OCC? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Jytdog, "way too intense"? I have already stated that I have no personal connection with this subject, and I have no actual connection with the OCC. I have read works by de Paulo, and I am impressed. I am a Roman Catholic priest and a Canon lawyer, but I am very interested in the Old Catholic movement, the Anglican Communion, the Roman Catholic Church and Christianity. I'm also very interested in the things in which I am interested. My interest in the article is serious. JustTryintobeJust (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If you are indeed a scholar, then I hope you can respect it that Wikipedia relies on high quality sources especially for a biography of a living person. The more you bring garbage sources like that pachurches website the less credible any claim from you about serious scholarship or objectivity is. You need to decide what is more important to you - respecting Wikipedia or your desire to promote de Paulo, even if that means scraping the bottom of the internet barrel. If you choose the latter you will not last long here. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Jytdog, that was a personal ad hominem attack, since I am not making any claims to be a scholar, I am a scholar of canon law; and to refer to the pachurches website as a "garbage source" is also reductio ad absurdum, since it is the oldest Council of Churches in the United States and its website is a serious source and more than acceptable for wikipedia. Once again, you seem rather emotional about all of this, and you appear to be more interested in getting this article deleted than maintaining high standards of editing. I respectfully disagree with your opinion on these topics. Therefore, I think we need to recommend arbitration here. Thanks.JustTryintobeJust (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No it was asking you to be what you say you are. You are either a scholar interested in working within WP's value system or you are here to advocate for de Paulo. You need to figure out which you are. Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

3O, procedural flaw

I took a quick look at Talk:Craig J. N. de Paulo and this does not appear to be a two-person conflict. Would you care to narrow your request down to a specific conversation? Otherwise, your request for a third opinion is likely to be removed for procedural reasons. If it really is a multi-person conflict, then I recommend you check out WP:RFC. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Darkfrog24, thanks for your quick reply. I'm new to this so I'm not quite sure how to proceed, but I welcome whatever suggestion you may have. Thanks!JustTryintobeJust (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Well no one's mad at you or thinks your request doesn't have merit or anything like that. It was removed because you posted it in the wrong place. 3O is for two-person conflicts in which the addition of just one more voice might make a difference. It low-key and the results are not binding. An RfC (request for comment), however, is binding; people are expected to act in accordance with its outcome until another RfC overturns it. Wikipedia's rules are freaking byzantine. You'll get it.

As for what to do next about de Paulo, I'd concur with what Rob said in his edit summary: advised to use AFD about questions about notability. AfD is articles for deletion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Darkfrog24, lol...thanks! Since User:BoBoMisiu seems to be more interested in this, I will leave it to him. I'm just tired of all the nonsense on these Talk pages and the endless discussion. Thx.JustTryintobeJust (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Craig J. N. de Paulo. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. Jytdog (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Jytdog, so you are editor, judge and jury. How could an editor, who is involved in a debate, be able to give such a warning? Incredulous and unjust. I have requested administrative assistance. JustTryintobeJust (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I am a fellow editor warning you that you are violating a policy about behavior here. You need to work toward consensus and not try to force changes through. There is WP:NODEADLINE here. Take your time. Jytdog (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

And, you are not overstepping your authority here by simply undoing eight credible sources as citations to an article?JustTryintobeJust (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Credible to you. Right now it is you and me discussing. You are in way too much of a hurry here. Please read WP:ADVOCACY Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I will wait for administrator's input. But, this should be reviewed by an impartial administrator. JustTryintobeJust (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

A warning doesn't need anyone's input. You have been warned for edit warring. If you continue, you may be blocked. It is that simple. The key takeaway for you here is to work with me and other editors on the Talk page and not continuing trying to force your version into the article. There is further discussion there that you should pay mind to and join with. Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I was not trying to "force" anything...only cite supporting sources. In my view, there is too much attention to the de Paulo page and a great deal of emotion and egoism, which strikes me as very strange and disproportionate.JustTryintobeJust (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking for assistance

Need some assistance with the chaos on Craig J. N. de Paulo's talk page. I am trying to follow Wikipedia's policies on Biographies of Living Persons, but getting frustrated over the all of the contentiousness among editors and users that are permitted to use wikipedia for personal agendas. JustTryintobeJust (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• I have come here in response to your request for "Admin help". Previously I was unaware of your existence, and of the existence of Craig J. N. de Paulo, let alone the controversies about the Wikipedia article about him, so I am a completely uninvolved third party. I have extensively read your contributions to Wikipedia, and the answers and comments relating to them from other editors. I have no view as to the validity of the different (and frequently violently conflicting) opinions expressed about Craig J. N. de Paul in the discussions, but since the job of a Wikipedia administrator in such a situation is to be an uninvolved and impartial outsider, that is no bar to my responding to your request for admin help: on the contrary, it is a qualification for doing so. On the other I hand, I do have very clear opinions regarding the behavioural issues, and on those issues I will comment.

1. You are clearly here to promote a point of view. Naturally, you believe that point of view is the "truth": we all regard our own opinions as correct, which is why we hold them. However, believing that one's own opinions are correct does not exempt one from the principal that editing to promote a point of view is unacceptable. Even your username proclaims that you are here to promote a view which you regard as "just"; naturally, others have different views as to what is just.
2. You have at times shown a battleground approach to other editors, impugning bad motives to them, and making ad hominem attacks on them (while yourself repeatedly accusing others of ad hominem attacks, with an apparent inability to view your own actions objectively).
3. There are also other respects in which you appear to lack inability to see that accusations you make against others editors often apply in at least as large a measure to yourself, and in some cases to a very much greater measure. To give just one example, there is your statement on this page that there is "a great deal of emotion and egoism", while, coming in as an uninvolved outside observer, I see more signs of emotional involvement from you than from most other editors involved in the discussions.
4. There have been numerous suggestions that your claims about who you are are inaccurate. It seems highly probable that at least some of those suggestions are valid. For example, while I am not an expert on the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church, it does seem to me that "the authenticity of orders and of churches has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church" is contrary to the teaching of that church, making it surprising that that statement should be made by someone who is a Roman Catholic priest and canon lawyer.
5. There have been suggestions that you have previously edited from other accounts. I do not see anywhere near enough evidence to substantiate those suggestions, and in the absence of definite evidence, I see no reason to disbelieve your statement that you have not done so.
6. You have been notified about discretionary sanctions. I strongly urge you to think carefully about what I have said, look carefully at how you have been editing, and make efforts to ensure that you do not continue to edit in ways which seem to others to be unconstructive, as otherwise you are likely to have sanctions imposed. (And bear in mind that what matters is how your editing looks to uninvolved outsiders, irrespective of what you yourself believe about your editing.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:JamesBWatson, thank you for your comments. The emotion you sense is frustration with this entire process. I am not aware of any ad hominem attack that I have made upon another editor. Can you show me where I have done this? If so, I apologize. Further, I have attempted to contribute citations from web and print sources, which I was encouraged to do by one editor, then when I added the citations they were removed. This process seems impossible. Finally, have you read some of the comments by OCCUSpriest? Can you not agree that this individual is clearly attempting to defame de Paulo? JustTryintobeJust (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Checking carefully, it seems that the most unambiguous examples of ad hominem attacks that I thought were from you were in fact not from your account, but from IP edits which may or may not have been from you: you have stated that you have edited without using an account, and IP edits which looked similar in tone and content to your edits I tended to assume were from you, but obviously they may not have been. You have from time to time strayed further into accusations about motives of other editors than I think was wise, but it would probably be an overstatement to call those instances "ad hominem attacks", and I withdraw that.

I do understand that the "emotion" I referred to is "frustration with this entire process", and since you evidently believe you are right, I can understand that frustration. However, that does not detract from the fact that accusing others of emotional involvement while yourself appearing to be emotionally involved is likely to reduce the value of what you say in the eyes of other editors.

I am far from happy about the editing of OCCUSpriest, and that is, in fact, one of the reasons why I referred to "most other editors involved in the discussions": OCCUSpriest's involvement meant that I would certainly not have made that statement about all other editors involved.

You say "This process seems impossible". To a large extent, I agree. One of Wikipedia's biggest weaknesses is that it has no adequate way of dealing with cases like this, where a topic of only small minority interest attracts a lot of editing from editors with strong commitments to promoting particular points of view. We do not have "moderators" who have the power to adjudicate, nor could we possibly do so, as it would require people with expert knowledge but unambiguously unbiased and impartial approaches on each of the numerous topics involved, and there is no conceivable way of recruiting such experts: apart from any other consideration, who would assess who was qualified to do that job in a particular case? There are various mechanisms for attempting to deal with such problems, some of which are listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but none of those is guaranteed to help, especially in a case where editors on both sides are interested only in pressing the view that they have pre-decided is correct, and have no interest in trying to consider alternative points of view. Then of course there is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which can sometimes be helpful, but very often it is most unhelpful. Since most (though not all) of the problems in this case are disagreements about article content, there is not a lot that administrators can do to deal with the underlying problems. An administrator can take actions against particular editors who have acted disruptively, but that does nothing to address the article content issues. Fortunately, more than 99% of Wikipedia articles do not have these problems, but I can quite see that from the point of view of someone whose main interest lies in one of the few articles that do, it must seem like a huge and insuperable problem. I am genuinely sorry that I don't have any magic solution to offer.

In the course of re-reading your talk page comments to check the issue of ad hominem attacks, my attention was caught by the remark "I regard de Paulo and his scholarship highly." Are you sure that you are not letting your personal high regard for his scholarship influence how you assess everything else about the article, such as the validity of sources, the motivations of other editors, etc? That is a very easy mistake to make, and all of us do it at times; whether you are doing so in this case I don't know, but I suggest it is worth looking at your own approach critically, and looking out for any signs of such unintentional bias. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Wolsey, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Churchman and Statesman. 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) 13:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry...just a mistake. JustTryintobeJust (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)