User talk:Sturgispretzels

Hello, I'm Criticize. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Clash of the Titans (film series) seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Criticize (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Polygnotus (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Polygnotus. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Polygnotus (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Please respond here so I know you read this. Polygnotus (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Sturgispretzels (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi! So... about those edits:

We have to be pretty damn careful on Wikipedia about who we accuse of what, because otherwise we can get sued.

And we have very strict rules about what we can write about living and recently deceased humans, see WP:BLP.

Per WP:BLPPRIMARY : Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

Aftenposten.no is also not a strong source.

Furthermore, if we do mention stuff like that, it needs to be balanced related to the rest of the article. So for example we can't have an article that focuses too much on negative stuff, because it would look like a smear.

You were blocked, and now you returned to put the same stuff back. Can you read the pages I linked to? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Polygnotus, thank you for the note. I understand the concern under WP:BLP and I agree that any material about a living person needs to be handled carefully, neutrally, and with due weight.

That said, I would like to separate two issues: the content question and the editing-pattern question.

On the content question, I agree that court filings, transcripts, and public records should not be used to make contentious assertions about a living person. However, my understanding is that WP:BLPPRIMARY is aimed at the use of primary legal/public records, not at properly attributed, independent secondary news coverage. If the material is supported by reliable secondary reporting, I think the discussion should focus on reliability, wording, attribution, and due weight rather than treating all coverage as prohibited primary-source material.

On Aftenposten, I understand your concern, but I do not think a general “controversies” section about a publication is enough by itself to treat the outlet as unreliable for all purposes. Reliability should be assessed in context: the specific article, the type of claim, whether it is news reporting or opinion, and whether other reliable sources corroborate it.

On the editing-pattern question, I want to raise a concern carefully and without making any personal accusation. Because this is a biography of a living person, repeated removal of sourced negative or potentially unfavorable material may raise a possible conflict-of-interest concern if any editor has a close personal, professional, financial, or other connection to the subject. I am not claiming that is the case here, and I do not want anyone to disclose private personal information. But if any editor involved has a relevant connection to the subject, I believe it should be disclosed in the appropriate way under WP:COI so uninvolved editors can evaluate the content neutrally.

To avoid edit-warring, I will not restore the material again without discussion. Could we get input from uninvolved editors on the article Talk page, or if needed, at WP:BLPN / WP:RSN / WP:COIN, focusing on:

1. whether the source is reliable for the specific claim,

2. whether the wording is BLP-compliant,

3. whether inclusion gives undue weight, and

4. whether any COI disclosure is needed?

I also want to be clear that I am not asking anyone to identify themselves, connect accounts to real-world identities, or disclose private information. My concern is limited to whether there may be an undisclosed relationship affecting the editing of this BLP. If that concern is better handled at WP:COIN or privately through the appropriate channels, I am open to doing that rather than escalating it on this Talk page. Sturgispretzels (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi ChatGPT, can I debate your human operator please? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and its also a copyright violation because you posted a translation of the aftenposten.no article on Wikipedia. That is not allowed, we only want stuff that you wrote yourself, from a neutral perspective and based on reliable sources. Polygnotus (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Polygnotus, thank you for flagging this. If the text I added was too close to a translation of the Aftenposten article, I understand the copyright concern and I will not restore that wording.

My intent was not to copy the article, but to summarize the reporting into English. I understand that Wikipedia text needs to be written independently, in a neutral voice, and based on reliable sources, not copied or closely translated from a copyrighted source.

To fix this, I am willing to leave the material out for now and propose a much shorter version on the Talk page that:

1. uses my own wording,

2. avoids close paraphrasing or translated wording,

3. attributes the claim to the source where appropriate,

4. keeps the wording neutral and BLP-compliant, and

5. gives the issue only due weight within the article.

If there is concern that the translated/copyvio wording remains in the page history, I am also fine with asking an administrator whether revision deletion is needed under the copyright cleanup process.

Could we discuss whether a brief, independently written summary of the reliably sourced reporting would be acceptable, separate from the copyright issue with the prior wording? Sturgispretzels (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi ChatGPT, can I debate your human operator please? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

And I believe you were told to stop editwarring? Polygnotus (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Polygnotus it's pretty clear the person reverting the edits is or is closely related to the BLP. Sturgispretzels (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

That is an assumption of bad faith. See WP:AGF. But even if it is true, then that would be allowed under the rules. Polygnotus (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Fair point on WP:AGF. I am not trying to assume bad faith or make a personal accusation. I withdraw any implication about the editor’s identity or motive.

My concern is based only on the public editing pattern: the logged-out/IP editor’s visible contributions appear to be focused solely, or almost solely, on the Adrian R’Mante article. I understand that this does not prove a conflict of interest, and I am not claiming that it does. However, because this is a BLP and the edits involve removal of sourced unfavorable material, I think it is reasonable to ask for uninvolved review.

I will keep the discussion focused on policy, diffs, sourcing, due weight, and BLP compliance. If COI is a concern, I agree it should be handled carefully without identifying anyone or asking anyone to disclose private information.

Would you object to getting input from uninvolved editors at WP:BLPN, WP:RSN, or WP:COIN so this can be resolved by consensus rather than back-and-forth reverts? Sturgispretzels (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:LLMTALK. Can I talk to your human please? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Adrian R'Mante for edit warring to restore disputed inadequately-sourced content contrary to WP:BLP. The article talk page is still available for you to make your case for inclusion of the content..

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 ~~~~}}.  Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:49, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Ponyo please take a look at the history page for Adrian R'Mante. There are several contributions from SPA's that need to be looked at. Sturgispretzels (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2026 (UTC)