User talk:Fingray7

Hi Fingray7! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or you can always find a task here:

Search the Task Center

Happy editing! Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 04:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I hope you notice and read this message...

As a result of being warned by an Wiki administrator not to engage in an edit war, I did not revert your recent addition of the phrase "a prominent conspiracy theorist" in the Dallas Brodie article. What's peculiar with this situation is that I am inclined to agree with you that she is one. However, without reference or support from independent trustworthy sources, you should not be ascribing such an epithet in Wikipedia, as it is not a neutral, factual statement. So please, with this is mind, I would urge you to undo your own edit. This accidental edit war has never been a case of "vandalism" for removing that dubious title. And I will stand to be corrected if you provided a source. MauriceYMichaud (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @MauriceYMichaud.

Below I've attached the cited source in the article by the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) describing Dallas Brodie as a "residential school denialist". As described by the Canadian Journal of Political science published in Cambridge University Press:

"residential school denialism directly contradicts the findings of the TRC and statements from experts by casting doubt on the number of deaths at the schools, questioning the existence of unmarked graves at former school sites, and denying that the schools were designed to forcibly assimilate Indigenous children into Euro-Canadian, Christian society. Denialism is a distinctive case of political misinformation. Denialists are not merely uninformed about the residential school history, but actively endorse claims that are at odds with the historical record. Similar to other conspiracy theories, denialism has in recent years spread via online channels and employed the rhetoric of fake news.”

I've attached a link to this journal below as well.

As this clearly show, Brodie can be clearly described as a conspiracy theorist due to her claims of residential school denialism. This claim is supported not only by opinion pieces, but also academic journals.

https://www.ubcic.bc.ca/fnlc_responds_to_dallas_brodies_false_accusation

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-journal-of-political-science-revue-canadienne-de-science-politique/article/prevalence-and-correlates-of-residential-school-denialism-in-canada/B202369A4385BC49A0D8FD1B3C53E8B5

I appreciate you bringing this up! Thanks, Fingray7 (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, this is excellent! It's been clear all along in my mind that she has been (disgustingly) engaged in residential school denialism, and I refused to watch that video she posted a while back. I also note that the first of the two links you provided is in the references for the article.

But! :)

I'm still not sure that "prominent conspiracy theorist" should be in the first sentence of the article, but I do think it should be worked into the first paragraph, without the adjective "prominent." (While I agree that people holding such views are dangerous, why give her so much importance?) So what would you think of removing those three words in the first sentence, but adding the following (in italics below) to the last sentence of that same paragraph:

Initially elected as a member of the Conservative Party, Brodie has since been removed from the Conservative caucus for "using her position of authority to mock testimony of survivors of abuse, including child sex abuse,"[5] and has been denounced by government officials as well as Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups across the country for being a disseminator of conspiracy theories about residential school.

What do you think? I'm not trying to bury the lead or in any way give her a pass. In fact, between you and me, I think the adjective "prominent" and the noun "theorist" are way too generous in her regard. So, wouldn't this achieve a more neutral point of view per Wikipedia guidelines? WP:NPOV

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this. And notice that I did NOT edit the article as I'm suggesting. LOL! MauriceYMichaud (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I feel like this is a reasonable way to word it. I couldn't agree more with you on using the word "prominent," however unfortunately being a elected member of the legislative assembly does give you a pretty significant platform. I will change it to your suggestion, but I still do think the current article is pretty neutral, considering calling her a conspiracy theorist is an objective fact not subjective.

Now we have to see if the right-wing bots will continue logging into temporary accounts to change this edit too lol.

I appreciate your suggestions.

Thanks! Fingray7 (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you know what I really think? I think it's been worded subtlely enough that they won't pick up on it, at least not as much as slapping "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence. I mean, I was on your side all along on this one, but I just couldn't let it pass, because I agree that the rest of the article is neutral, which we probably agree is really hard to do when editing an article about such an awful person. :-p MauriceYMichaud (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Fingray7,

Welcome to Wikipedia.

I wanted to point out that Wikipedia operates on consensus, not on individual editors repeatedly making changes they personally believe are correct. When there is disagreement about content, the appropriate step is to open a discussion on the article’s talk page and work toward consensus with other editors.

You may find the following pages helpful, as they explain how decisions about article content are actually made on Wikipedia:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

Simply continuing to restore or push a preferred version without discussion generally isn’t how editing disputes are resolved here. If you believe your version improves the article, please explain your reasoning on the talk page and allow other editors to weigh in. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 02:24, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @TimeToFixThis,

This lead was created after much discussion among editors on various user talk pages. It was decided to be the most neutral point of view while maintaining critical information.

By no means is it my personal beliefs or opinions. To be blunt, you are the "individual editors repeatedly making changes they personally believe are correct."

While I understand your concerns, please feel free to bring it up in the talk page to discuss more, rather than reverting my edits.

Thanks, Fingray7 (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Fingray7,

Discussions that take place across individual user talk pages generally don’t establish consensus for article content. Consensus is normally formed on the article’s talk page so that the discussion is transparent and open to participation from all editors watching the article (see WP:Talk and WP:Consensus)..

Regarding the wording itself, the concern is not simply a matter of preference. The lead of a biography is intended to summarize the most important high-level facts about the subject, rather than reproduce detailed controversies that are already covered in the body of the article (see WP:LEAD and WP:NOTEVERYTHING). Including extended criticism in the opening paragraph risks giving it disproportionate weight in a biography of a living person (WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV).

If there were prior discussions that informed the wording, it would be helpful to link them and summarize them on the article talk page so other editors can review them. Otherwise, the best place to determine the appropriate wording for the lead is through a discussion on the article talk page where a clear consensus can be established. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 04:33, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @TimeToFixThis,

Per WP:LEAD "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

To suggest that the lead contains "criticism" is incorrect, it contains cited facts that give important background on this individual. Even if you personally disagree with this information, it does not give you the right to remove it.

If you have issues with wording or information included, I recommend you follow your own advice and bring it up on the article's talk page, rather than engaging in edit warring. Fingray7 (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Fingray,

It's obvious you're new to Wikipedia with only 67 edits on the main space, and from reviewing your edits it appears that you have primarily edited the Dallas Brodie article. If you are serious about participating as an editor in good faith, it may be better to gain experience on less controversial pages rather than taking an activist approach to a single topic.

Yes, WP:Lead states that prominent controversies may be included in the lead, but it also requires the lead to be a concise summary of the article rather than a detailed account of specific events. When those details are already covered in the body, repeating them in the opening paragraph can raise balance concerns, particularly in WP:Biographies of living persons. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 22:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @TimeToFixThis,

Seems like you're suffering from a case of Wikipedia:Editcountitis. The number of edits on this account does not necessarily reflect my experience and does not discount the edits I make, as you should know.

Your edit history shows significant editing of biographies of right-wing extremists, showing your potential for bias. You also display you reside in British Columbia, obviously demonstrating you have underlying opinions impacting your edits.

I would encourage you to take your own advice, and "if you are serious about participating as an editor in good faith, it may be better to gain experience on less controversial pages rather than taking an activist approach to a single topic."

I will encourage you again, if you find the content/wording of a lead concerning, I recommend you bring it up in the talk section, rather than simply reverting edits created after consensus on a topic. Fingray7 (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Please link here the discussion where this consensus was reached. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 02:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Look above for the main discussion with another editor Fingray7 (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Again, a discussion on your own personal talk page with one other editor is not how consensus works. First off, no one from the actual article is even aware that this discussion is happening, and the world doesn’t revolve around you.

Again, this is where the “amateur hour” problem comes in with many new editors. You’re only here to edit one page to make it sound better to your liking, while sidelining the actual rules and creating a headache for the rest of us who are trying to do the real work.

I’ve been working on biographies of officeholders in BC and across North America for about two and half years now with the sole goal of helping the community. I have no agenda. What you are doing here is not helpful. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 03:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

You have previously engaged in edit warring with users on Brodie's biography. Your repeated reversions are not helpful, and you refuse to engage in polite civilized discussion on the topic in the designated talk page (not to mention the fact that this is not the first time you have refused to engage in discussion on this topic).

By no means have I sidelined any rules and I am not writing any articles "to make it sound better to [my] liking." You are repeatedly deleting factual cited information that is unbiased, from a neutral perspective, and written by the collaboration from multiple editors.

YOU are ignoring Wikipedia's rules, and it took the page being locked (on your own request lol), for your antics to stop.

Your hostility is never going to get anyone to agree with you, and I would've liked to engage in discussion on the wording/content of the lead in the designated talk page instead of arguing about it with you here.

I hope next time you follow Wikipedia's clear protocols instead of engaging in edit warring and refusing to follow the consensus based format that creates neutral unbiased articles. Fingray7 (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey - I see you are coming in strong as a new editor. Just wanted to welcome you and encourage your passion. I've found it to be a rewarding hobby. Though, I often recede over to the world of biogas and renewable energy tech to get away from the fray of local political figures. So do take some time to avoid burnout, my first bout on the Dallas Brodie page definitely wound me up for a week.

Also, I hope you'll take my edits in good spirit. I see you're adding a lot and I'm grateful that you're putting in the work on local politicians. My approach is that there should be good information but we do have to avoid writing a hagiography. This can be difficult when a lot of the sources on local politicians is self-reported (go see the fight on the federal NDP page about what counts as a reportable endorsement) or completely under-reported. RedactedSagan (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2026 (UTC)