User talk:Eric1974x

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Eric1974x, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Talk:Bill Clinton. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mz7 (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eric1974x, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as 170.250.98.128 (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you.

Specifically, your two-edit account was dormant for four years and is now making edits minutes apart while using the same misspelled words in multiple articles. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--> Answer: UW Dawgs is the perfect example of a bully, who has learned the rules of Wikipedia editing very well, yet wields this knowledge as a weapon. Everything UW Dawgs accuses me of doing here is what he does in his articles and edits (i.e. "projection"). He continually establishes opinions as fact, engages in serial POV Pushing, is the definition of non-neutral POV, engages in Content Forking, and violates the "Due and undue weight" policy.

Yes, I am a novice editor and have rarely felt compelled to engage in the complicated and arcane process of editing Wikipedia. However, I was astonished at the work UW Dawgs had foisted upon Wikipedia readers, and felt compelled to act to balance the misleading content in several pages in which UW Dawgs has intervened heavily over the years.

As Wikipedia establishes in the very editing links you have recommended, "remember that you can't break Wikipedia, and, although there are many protocols, perfection is not required, as Wikipedia is a work in progress."Help:Editing - Wikipedia If UW Dawgs had an issue with some misspelled words or links, then UW Dawgs could have engaged in good-faith editing by correcting the words or the formatting of sources/links, rather than deleting entire sentences and accompanying sources.

These examples UW Dawgs has posted also make accusations and threats to me as a new editor (even you acknowledge I'm new), unfamiliar with the arcane rules and editing platforms. What UW Dawgs mischaracterizes as "dual identities" is actually a failure in consistency across Wikipedia's platforms, and annoying integration with Apple iOS. I believed every edit I made was done logged in under my username, and was surprised to see some of my edits logged as an "Anonymous" IP address since I had logged in multiple times on my iPhone where I was making the edits. It is obvious these edits were made by me, instead UW Dawgs engages in conspiracy theories about "outside coordination with multiple accounts" and makes threats of banishment from Wikipedia.

I initially edited within Google search results when I came across the non-neutral and POV-pushing work that UW Dawgs had perpetrated upon Wikipedia readers. Then, I used Safari, Chrome and Wikipedia's iPhone App trying to edit, read content, and read Wikipedia's editing guide at the same time. Each browser offers a different and inconsistent editing experience, and the iPhone App is the worst, since it did not offer the link/citation tools available in browsers.Eric1974x (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the first Wikipedia user that UW Dawgs has bullied and threatened in his POV Pushing and Vandalism crusade (see UW Dawgs Talk page and the Talk pages of the articles referenced here; recent users bullied/threatened by UW Dawgs: Cool a123, Friarthe, Alansohn, Third degree 14, WolverineNation).User_talk:UW_Dawgs

What editors like me are searching for is a consensus on including Neutral and Fact-Based content, which is not currently the case in these articles about the University of Washington Huskies (i.e. UW Dawgs). As Wikipedia reminds us: "Behind the scenes of Wikipedia articles, there is a large community of volunteer editors working to build the encyclopedia. It is not uncommon for editors to disagree about the way forward. That is when discussion and attempts to reach consensus should take place."Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia:Discussion and consensusEric1974x (talk)

Instead of threatening and banishing Wikipedia users/editors, UW Dawgs should seek consensus on the edits to which he objects.Eric1974x (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to police POV Pushing?[edit]

Neutral point of view

  • All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

POV pushing

  • POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas.
  • The term 'POV-pushing' is primarily used in regard to the presentation of a particular point of view in an article, including on talk page discussions.

Eric1974x (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.


Specifically,

1) With this edit,[1] you asserted that


--> Answer: In its current form, the UW 1984 article implies the "major selectors" were active in January 1985 when the AP, UPI, USA Today/CNN, and other major polls announced their results contemporaneously. However, many of the "major selectors" did not even come into existence until much later, which is the definition of "post-hoc".

For example, the first selector referenced in the 1984 UW Huskies article is Berryman QPRS, which came into existence in 1990: "Berryman applied his QPRS system to select college football national champions on a current basis from 1990 to 2011. He also applied the QPRS system retroactively to select national champions for each year from 1920 to 1989."Berryman QPRS The NCAA source used to justify this claim, also makes it clear the Berryman selector had retroactively determined results for 1984 and every year between 1920-1989.1984 UW link to NCAA FBS records Thus, it is by definition "post hoc" and your removal is Vandalism as per the Wikipedia definition.What is Vandalism

Other quality issues with the same paragraph include the reference to the National Championship Foundation (NCF), which links to a Wikipedia page that does not include any information about 1984, includes dead links to the NCF website that make it impossible to verify the claim, and the linked page actually explains that NCF's work was in fact "post hoc" for 1984: "The NCF has retroactively selected national champions for each year from 1869 to 1870 and from 1872 to 2000."National_Championship_Foundation

That leaves the claim about selector "Football News," which has no link to the Football News website or a web archive, and no sources to verify the claim other than its inclusion in the NCAA FBS Records document that must be taken on faith. This same NCAA FBS Records document, on page 120 (in the 2017 version linked from the UW 1984 page)NCAA FBS Football Records - 2017, also confirms my statement about "Consensus National Champions" that you deleted multiple times. Therefore, either a properly-worded statement about the 1984 Consensus National Champion should be included, or that entire current section should be deleted since it relies on the same exact NCAA source for post-hoc selectors.Eric1974x (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • "Although Washington “had turned down a chance to play BYU in the Holiday Bowl”[1] in 1984, any doubt was settled on the field soon after in Provo, Utah when Washington lost 3-31 to BYU on September 14, 1985." where "any doubt" language is does not align with our WP:Neutral point of view policy including Avoid stating opinions as facts.. Aside, behavior of subsequent team(s) do not prove anything about prior team(s).
  • "BYU had also beat the PAC10 (sic) and Rose Bowl Champions UCLA in 1983, and Washington had not even been the Conference Champion in 1984." where you have misspelled and miscased words, while "had not even been" also fails WP:WIKIVOICE policy including re Avoid stating facts as opinions.

--> Answer: Wikipedia recommends "Discussion and Consensus" on areas where contributors and editors disagree.Discussion and consensus If UW Dawgs followed Wikipedia protocols, then he would make sensible edits to remove only the offending words and correct the alleged spelling errors. "Discussion and Consensus" implies an open discussion back and forth, done in good faith. These posts on my Talk page by UW Dawgs are not "Discussion and Consensus" at all, they are one-way diktats, threats, and passive-aggressive POV Pushing. If anyone should be banned from editing on Wikipedia, it should be UW Dawgs. I am shocked and disturbed that UW Dawgs' behavior is not only tolerated, but allowed to dominate on Wikipedia, a platform I have even supported financially.Eric1974x (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


2) With this edit,[2] you have added information already contained in the article to a section narrowly about 1984, where that information is not about 1984.

--> Answer: I could acknowledge this reasoning, if UW Dawgs acknowledges that his extraneous comment which is the subject of (3) just below is an example of this same reasoning.Eric1974x (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


3) With this edit,[3] you removed an explanatory key+comment pair from a table while asserting "Revert good faith edits to comply with NPOV." Removal of such appears to be WP:Vandalism such as On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge..

--> Answer: No, UW Dawgs is making unfounded accusations and projecting his own behavior (which is vandalism, POV Pushing, and non-neutral POV). In fact, your footnote is a perfect example of POV Pushing and Content Forking. The page where your "explanatory comment" was removed is titled "Pac-12 Conference football champions" and your comment is not related to the article. Notice your reasoning in (2) above, your comment on the Pac-12 Conf champions page falls within the same reasoning, "you have added information to a section narrowly about Pacific-12 Conference champions, where that information is not about Pacific-12 Conference champions." Eric1974x (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


4) With this edit,[4] you again asserted "BYU is recognized by the NCAA as the consensus 1984 National Champion for finishing #1 in all the major polls." where the NCAA does not recognize FBS national championships.

--> Answer: if UW Dawgs had read the citation and was making a good-faith effort in his editing, he would know it is the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision Records, and page 125 lists "Consensus National Champions" which only shows BYU for 1984. In fact, you cite this very source for your misleading claim about "major selectors" and even use the term "NCAA-approved" for the major selectors. UW Dawgs is engaged in POV pushing and violates Neutral POV.

Just like the NCAA now "recognizes" major selectors, it also "recognizes" the major polls which it defines as the source for the "Consensus" list. Those "major" or "Consensus" polls are in bold lettering to differentiate from the other selectors. If UW Dawgs was sincere in his efforts to support the Wikipedia project's purpose, "which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge," then he wouldn't engage in this contradictory behavior. Since the source is unimpeachable, UW Dawgs has to revert to Vandalism to remove the source, while hiding behind Wikipedia protocols. UW Dawgs could have simply changed the word "recognizes" to a more appropriate word that describes the facts established on page 125 ("Consensus National Champions") of the NCAA source.Eric1974x (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


5) With this edit,[5] you removed long-standing content, again asserted NCAA-recognition, created a broken reference, and miscased words.

Note, substantially identical edits were made by the IP listed above. As a new editor, you may wish to review Help:Getting started and Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--> Answer: UW Dawgs is the perfect example of a bully, who has learned the rules of Wikipedia editing very well, yet wields this knowledge as a weapon instead of engaging in constructive discussion to arrive at consensus. Everything UW Dawgs accuses me of doing, is what he does in the articles he edits. He continually establishes opinions as fact, engages in egregious POV Pushing, is the definition on non-neutral POV, and engages in Content Forking, just to name a few violations of Wikipedia protocols.

These examples UW Dawgs has posted make accusations and threats to me as a novice editor (even you acknowledge I'm a novice with few contributions), unfamiliar with the arcane rules and editing platforms of Wikipedia. What UW Dawgs mischaracterizes as "dual identities" is actually a failure in consistency across Wikipedia's platforms, and annoying integration with Apple iOS. I believed every edit I made was done logged in under my username, and was surprised to see some of my edits logged as an "Anonymous" IP address since I had logged in multiple times on my iPhone where I was making the edits. I initially edited within Google search results when I came across the non-neutral and POV-pushing work that UW Dawgs had perpetrated upon Wikipedia readers. Then, I also used Safari, Chrome and Wikipedia's iPhone App trying to edit, read content, and read Wikipedia's editing guide at the same time. Each browser offers a different and inconsistent editing experience, and the iPhone App is the worst, since it does not offer the link/citation tools available in browsers.Eric1974x (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eric1974x&oldid=996041537"