User talk:NickBryant

Welcome!

Hello, NickBryant, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of 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)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion 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! Will Beback talk 22:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

Thanks for your note. This is certainly a complicated issue. The main issues for us here on Wikipedia are how to cover it while following some of the core principles of Wikipedia. First, we have to be very diligent when dealing with issues that involve living people, so as to avoid doing any harm (WP:BLP). Second, all material needs to be verifiable from reliable, published sources (WP:V). There are other important policies too, which also need to be followed (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR). Those make it difficult to include all of the alternative theories. If you'd like to discuss this further I suggest using the article talk page, talk:Franklin child prostitution ring allegations. Will Beback talk 22:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was originally very stable and had received favourable comments from several outside sources for it's coverage and neutrality. Unfortunately, there was an editor who would not allow any mention of the Republican party. After failing to get mention removed he eventually disrupted the article so much through tendentious behaviour that the article was stubbed. Basically, although you yourself were considered a reliable source, this problem editor canvassed for support to have your publisher declared unreliable and won. It was argued that if your publisher is unreliable, then by extention you can't be used as a source. Consensus can change so reliability could be brought up again. To get an idea of what a joke the entire dispute was I suggest you read this page which details some of the editors behaviour, and this section which is the noticeboard discussion regarding your reliability. Cheers. Wayne (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Franklin child prostitution ring allegations, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Signing your posts

Hi Nick, please can you sign your talkpage posts by typing four tildes (~~~~), please see WP:SIG for further information. Regards, Giant Snowman 14:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you are signing with four tildes, the reason the signature bot is still autosigning your posts is because you've customised your signature and removed any links to your userpage, contribution page or talk page. Hopefully this was by accident, if so you can see Wikipedia:How to fix your signature for how to fix it. If it wasn't by accident, do note it's generally accepted a signature should contain a link to at least one of those per WP:SIGLINK. This doesn't affect how signatures are displayed on the page however they do have to be compliant with the other guidelines and policies for signatures and since there is a User:Nick, I'm not sure that Nick would be acceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It won't, it pings me automatically. :-( Nick (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since we already have a User:Nick, you should change your signature and not use the simple "Nick". May I suggest "Nick B"? This will avoid possible WP:SIGFORGE problems. You will find that other contributors will address you as "Nick" or "Nick B" (or whatever you choose). Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Please do look at WP:SELFCITE. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi S Rich, thanks for the edification. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, so I appreciate the help. Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences states: "If you write about yourself, your group or your company, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, or to delete it outside the normal channels. Content is irrevocably added with every edit. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want to have included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually." Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences aren't applicable to this situation, because I won't be writing about myself or my group or company. I'll be writing about the Franklin child prostitution allegations.Nick (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the green information box at WP:LUC does use those words. It is informational in support of the policy. I think any editor who sees you citing yourself in an article would consider the edit to be "about yourself" in the sense you are saying "Hello world, look at this edit that uses material written by Nick Byrant". And once they objected – for any reason – the edit becomes controversial. On a related subject, I see you've written a book OCLC 154714189. I'm not familiar with Trine Day, but I think contributors would look at the book as self published. If this is the case, then you'll face (more) objections. In any event, remember, the WP:BURDEN to include material in Wikipedia is on the editor who wants to add or remove material. One final point, content in WP is based on WP:CONSENSUS. But if WP policy, such as BLP policy, contradicts the consensus, then policy wins. – S. Rich (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NickB, edits you make to an article citing your own work as references will be controversial (and I daresay they have been already). To avoid unnecessary controversy, instead of editing the article directly, propose your edits on the Talk page, wait until consensus is formed, and let another editor add the material for you. There is some great advice over at WP:PLAINANDSIMPLECOI. --Ca2james (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you.--MONGO 18:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]