User talk:CrunchyDolphin

Jeremy Corbell Edit

Thanks for the edit, I didn't realize that, and this makes the data better! DuncanGT (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that line item has been removed, do you know anything about this? DuncanGT (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, CrunchyDolphin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Jeremy Corbell does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! jps (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How, specifically, is changing "ufologist" to "investigate journalist" against the neutral point of view rules and guidelines? It is actually more accurate and, per the rules, "independent sources" such as NewsNation have labeled Corbell as an "investigate journalist" and "filmmaker" covering the subject of UAP. CrunchyDolphin (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I've sad below, NewsNation is clearly not independent of him. And UFOs are an important part of their business model.[1] Doug Weller talk 08:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User DuncanGT originally agreed with me that my edit was a good and accurate change. I have provided independent sources backing up my edit as well.

The rebuttal I received was a link to this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#UFOlogy_promoter_BLPs):

"Jeremy Corbell works for newsnationnow, of course they call him an investigative journalist, but we shouldn't. Someone needs to revert at that article. I see a couple of the other SPAs have also been blocked.. I see JoJo Anthrax has given out some CT alerts. Let me know if I can help more as an Admin. I read the REDDIT page." Doug Weller

Not only is this inaccurate, as Corbell does not have an official affiliation with newsnation, it ignores other sources that call Corbell the same thing such as Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/video/6344773221112

I demand a serious and legitimate rebuttal as to why this is problematic to have on Corbell's page, if one exists. CrunchyDolphin (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are using a tighter definition of work than I do. I consider writing for Newsnation to be work; He not only writes for them, they use him on their official YouTube channel, eg here they are talking about him. Whatever you call it, he has a very close relationship with them and gets paid by them. Doug Weller talk 08:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DuncanGT is an extremely inexperienced editor. Doug Weller talk 08:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 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 ~~~~}}. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:39, 22 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).

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

Request reason:

I got blocked for simply adding that Corbell has a podcast called Weaponized? I don't understand, it isn't promotional, it's a legitimate part of his career that is odd not to include. Other independent sources have covered before: https://www.forbes.com/sites/risasarachan/2023/02/07/cadence13-weaponized-podcast-explores-the-unknown-with-investigative-reporters-jeremy-corbell-and-george-knapp/ I ask to be unbanned as it was unreasonable

Decline reason:

This last edit summary explains this (and note you did not add a source, contrary to your protestations here). This is also a contentious topic area, as you have been advised. You did not make any effort to use the article talk page to work things out, and really in a BLP in a CTOP that's jaw-dropping. Besides, this is a short block you might have done better by riding out. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:23, 22 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.

CrunchyDolphin (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were given a warning about edit warring. You made another revert after that warning. The consequence should hardly be a surprise. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what about the people "warring" back with zero justfucation or legitimate reasoning? Were they banned as well? I provided a legitimate independent source backing up my edits but I'm banned for "warring"?

Surely you can see the nuance of this situation, it's not warring when I'm providing simple factual career information about someone with sources as well. Thanks. CrunchyDolphin (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. You have not adequately addressed the reason for your block.

Please see our policy on edit warring. In the event of a content dispute, editors are required to stop reverting, discuss, and seek consensus among editors on the relevant talk page. If discussions reach an impasse, editors can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

Points to ponder:

Edit warring is wrong even if one is right.

Any arguments in favor of one's preferred version should be made on the relevant talk page and not in an unblock appeal.

Calling attention to the faults of others is never a successful strategy; one must address one's own behavior.

To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute. Please tell us, in your own words, what it all means. Thanks,. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...Other independent sources have covered before: https://www.forbes.com/sites/risasarachan/2023/02/07/cadence13-weaponized-podcast-explores-the-unknown-with-investigative-reporters-jeremy-corbell-and-george-knapp/... Not an independent reliable source. See WP:FORBESCON. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I notice that you comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harald Malmgren (2nd nomination) in the form of an aspersion against the integrity of the nominator, Chetsford, here ("a shameless attempt at censorship", etc). You have compunded this at the fringe theories noticeboard, where you attack Chetsford twice (!), here and here, accusing them of "an absolutely shameless attempt at censorship" which "reminds you of authoritarian regimes performing book burnings". Civility and no personal attacks are policy here. If it was one attack, I might have let you off with a warning, but this nasty campaign is completely unacceptable. You have been blocked for 60 hours. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 09:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen - I don't want to jump the queue but, on a topical aside if you had a moment, would you mind evaluating the need for protection on Harald Malmgren? AfP is a bit backlogged at the moment and the article is being edit warred into oblivion via Reddit-based canvassing. All the registered editors have hit our 3RR walls. Chetsford (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi'd for a month. Bishonen | tålk 10:10, 24 April 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm being unfairly treated and would like a review. What I said is true, the user Chetsford is abusing page deletion and other censorship tactics and going against good-faith editing rules to push personal bias and/or agendas. He also nominated to have Pippa Malmgren's and Christopher Mellon's pages deleted. They are using absolutely any justifications to use the most extreme action of having entire pages deleted. They also admitted as much, like right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harald_Malmgren_(2nd_nomination)#c-Chetsford-20250424004100-CrunchyDolphin-20250423222700 Essentially taunting me by saying that he will get those pages deleted, so me worrying about is pointless. He's expressed clear and unambiguous bias against public figures that have spoken in favor of UFOs, which Harald Malmgren, Pippa Malmgren, and Christopher Mellon all have in common. The user has also clearly stated they will relentlessly pursue this end (Chris Mellon's page is deleted) and if they can't get a page deleted (like Harald Malmgren's) then they will cull almost the entire page. This user has MULTIPLE examples of insulting believers in UFOs and expressing bias agianst the subject. Like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Chetsford-20250424105800-Ritchie333-20250424104500 or here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#c-Chetsford-20250423064500-Harald_Malmgren or here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#c-Chetsford-20250423182100-Chetsford-20250423064500 or here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#c-Chetsford-20250423204700-Rjjiii-20250423201600. I could go on, but any investigation into the actions of this user should quickly reveal their bias and attempts at censorship. Where can I further report this user Chetsford? Please point me in the right direction if you could, and thank you. CrunchyDolphin (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

An unblock request that starts off "the user Chetsford is abusing page deletion and other censorship tactics and going against good-faith editing rules to push personal bias and/or agendas." will get summarily declined. Unblock requests are about what you have done, and any that simply complain about other editors will lead admins to believe you do not understand the reason for the block, and hence will be convinced it must remain. Please read this page carefully. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:57, 24 April 2025 (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.

I'll further add that if I see you make one more attack on Chetsford, or any other Wikipedia editor, I will increase the block to an indefinite duration. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]