User talk:Insanityclown1

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Insanityclown1. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Jack Bogdanski, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would hardly say that I have a relationship with Bojack based on the fact I am a student in one (1) of his classes. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It'd still be discouraged. Also, please stop re-adding his nickname. You have not addressed the MOS:BADNICK issue. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

then delete both damn nicknames for all I care. The other one wasn't sourced either. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While it could be better directly cited, he is referred to as "Jack" in all of the sources on the page. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bojack is a Lewis and Clark Law internal nickname. the story is that his old mentor at stoel rives gave him the nickname back in the 80s. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And it's a pretty cool nickname. But if it's an internal thing, no need for it to be on his Wikipedia page AntiDionysius (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, its kinda internal and kinda not, considering that his blog that he publishes also refers to himself as bojack, and the willamette weekly has referred to him as such. I referred to it as an Lclark thing because its the most common place that it's used now, but its definitely out there, if a bit obscure. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Hello, I'm Jamedeus. 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 Oregon Ballot Measure 114 seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jamedeus (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JamedeusGotcha. Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government of Iran

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1978 Iranian politics, 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.

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Johnuniq (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments such as diff1 and diff2 are personal attacks and are not permitted. Rather than scoring points, editors are expected to explain their position and collaborate, while assuming good faith. If you think someone is wrong, you need to either say nothing or politely explain the perceived problem. Johnuniq (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User: JohnuniqWith regards to example 1, my assumption of good faith is contingent upon receiving the same from others. A clearly bad faith attempt to have me banned for "vandalism" does not engender any desire to assume the best from an editor. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it can be frustrating, we are required to assume good faith. If someone reported me for vandalism I would politely explain what I did and ask why they think it was vandalism. People can make mistakes and if things are quietly discussed, problems might be sorted out. If I knew the link, I would say that WP:VAND has a specific definition of vandalism. By the way, notifications do not work when you edit a comment. I was not notified here. A notification has to be in a new comment with a new signature, not an edit of an old comment. See WP:PING. Johnuniq (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]