Bentleythepup

January 2024

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, An Inconsistent Truth, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm the director of An Inconsistent Truth. Bentleythepup (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Phil Valentine. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  Kinu ^t/_c 05:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Given this comment, your pointless edits to Phil Valentine are very clearly an attempt to game the system to be able to edit the semi-protected article Ty Bollinger. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kinu,

I apologize, but Phil Valentine's website (a friend of mine) was doing the 10 edits to be able to get into Ty Bollinger's website since it's semi blocked from being editing. Ty is a friend of mine, and he asked me to edit his wiki page to make it more neutral as opposed to him being trashed. And I don't even agree with his stance on politics and vaccinations, but I was editing it to give him a fair approach. I just ask if I can be unblocked so that I can finish my changes to his wiki page. Bentleythepup (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

That's kind of worse. You have a Conflict of Interest about your friend's page. Trying to edit it without disclosing that would have been a serious problem, and even with a disclosure, you would be very very strongly discouraged from doing it. AntiDionysius (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Can I just make the edit and then let you look at it and you decide for yourself? I mean, Wiki is your guy's website. I'm just asking. Bentleythepup (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

And I didn't know I was doing something wrong. I just read online how to get around a semi-blocked page. I'm the last person who wants to come on here and cause disruption. Bentleythepup (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm just explaining as it is probably unlikely to help your case if you're seeking to be unblocked. But if you do want to make an appeal, you will need to put it in the appropriate formatting as laid out above. AntiDionysius (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try. For what it's worth, I've donated to you guys in the past when the site asks. In return, I'm just asking if I can finalize my edits to Ty's page. And again, I don't even agree with Ty on many of his positions, but he's a friend. Does that make sense? I'm trying to portray him in a neutral light so that your readers can make up their own minds for themselves (which is what an encyclopedia should be). Bentleythepup (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, this is a stupid question (and forgive me), looking at the guidelines to being unblocked, it says that I need to copy and paste this (never mind, it worked and here's my appeal) ...

Hi folks, my name is Shayne Edwards; in this thread, I was the director of An Inconsistent Truth, and Phil Valentine was a friend of mine. He was my producer, which is the only reason I went on those two sites to make my 10 changes before I could edit Ty Bollinger's site (which Ty asked me to do).

I did not realize that I was causing disruption for you folks, and I am the last person who wants to go online and cause problems. I'm a writer and a director, and not a troller. I do appreciate that you folks have been willing to respond to me with honesty. Again, I didn't realize I was doing anything wrong (and now that I was doing something wrong; I stand corrected and I apologize).

My appeal is that I be unblocked only to finish my edit to Ty Bollinger's site. Whoever wrote what they wrote on him IS misinformation about his character. What I'm actually trying to do is just delete the comments that trash him and keep it fair and neutral. And feel absolutely free to say yes or no, once I'm finished with his page.

Take care,

Shayne Bentleythepup (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia. I didn't see the messages where you guys were telling me to stop. I literally thought I was just dealing with a computer. Again, I'm just trying to remove some dark paint on a friend that's being put in a nasty light and make it more fair for him. Bentleythepup (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

You're supposed to use the unblock template (the thing with the curly braces as described in your block message): {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. That way your appeal will be seen by administrators.

The appeal you wrote above would not be successful. Basically you are saying that you intend to edit an article on a subject with which you have a conflict of interest. That isn't something you should do. Unblocking you would be conditional on whether you agree to refrain from editing the article, except for minor edits like spelling and grammar. Any content changes, you must propose on the article talk page, not edit directly. That is how we ensure that the article remains neutral, because it has not been edited by the subject or his friends or associates. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the subject himself asked me to edit it. I don't have a conflict of interest with him personally, regardless of differences of opinions on some things, which no two people in the world agree on everything (he's a friend). The person I have a conflict of interest with is whoever wrote the article and made up a bunch of stuff on Ty that isn't true. So in other words, it's far from neutral. Just look at the article. You can tell it's just written in flat-out anger. Whoever wrote it is just completely trashing the dude, not to mention there is only one reference at the bottom. Bentleythepup (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that where I saw that you study international relations, I don't know who owns wikipedia, but whoever wrote all this information on Ty is walking a fine legal line with it comes to defamation. That's what I'm trying to correct. Bentleythepup (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Because you're new here and unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, I'm going to try to explain a few things that you don't seem to understand.

First, you definitely have a conflict of interest. We have a guideline on that; see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You have an association with Ty Bollinger. You say he's a friend. Right there, that creates a conflict of interest. You are editing in his behalf. That further reinforces your conflict of interest.

You also have a conflict of interest about An Inconsistent Truth, which you directed, and you attempted to edit that article too. An editor with a conflict of interest, must not edit those articles. Instead, the editor with a COI must propose changes on the talk page, explaining the reasoning and citing reliable sources. You may preface your proposal with the template {{Edit COI}}, which causes your request to be listed on a category page that is monitored by some editors. An independent editor will eventually respond.

Try to understand what "neutral" actually means in an encyclopedia. We have a policy on that: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You haven't demonstrated any intention of editing with an eye to neutrality, instead you want to remove negative information that is widely available in reliable sources. That is called WP:WHITEWASHING here, and it's the opposite of neutral.

Being neutral doesn't mean eliminating any negative (or positive) information. It means we report what reliable sources say, giving due weight to what they say. We are disinterested in the subject, we are interested only in the sources and the weight given to those sources in the article. If only one source says he's a conspiracy theorist, it might deserve a trivial mention in the article. But the article cites at least nine different reliable sources that describe Bollinger's conspiracy theories and promotion of misinformation, some of which may cause real harm (as in death) to his followers. That's not my view, that's what the sources say. So we report it.

Third, your edits to the article attempted to remove these assertions from the lead paragraph. We have a guideline on that too. See WP:LEAD. The lead section of the article should provide a brief overview of the body of the article. Because the body of the article contains significant detail about conspiracy theories and misinformation, this must be summarized in the lead.

Finally, if you want to be unblocked, and you can agree to refrain from editing articles with which you have a conflict of interest, and instead propose your changes on the article talk page, then follow the unblock directions and make your appeal. You must convince an administrator that you are here to build an encyclopedia, that unblocking you will benefit the Wikipedia project, and not result in disruption causing other editors to clean up after you, which has happened already. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I admit that makes sense. By the way, my dad is lawyer with a degree in International and Comparative Law. Boy, he would be proud of you with your argument (I'm going to reread what you wrote again) ... (Hold on; this is a good conversation) ...

Okay, I can see what you're saying with neutrality, and you're right. By the way, I made my proposal just now before I saw your comment, but I'm listening to you. So basically what you're saying is that I should cite the other sources who say that he's a conspiracy theorist and give them weight too. You're right, and that's fair.

What if it was along the lines of, "Ty is a conspiracy theorist who believes that ..." Instead of stating, "A misinformation marketer with no scientific background" as fact.

What he wants people to do is live healthy and well, but I don't agree with him for one bit on vaccines, and that's because I talked to MANY doctors about that one who have no political agenda. Phil Valentine, who I directed An Inconsistent Truth for, he wasn't a conspiracy theorist, but in his dying days, he regretted his stance on the vaccine. BUT ... thousands of our fans got vaccinated as a result of his death. So he may have ended up saving lives.

I think what would be smart would be for me to look at the current Wikipedia page WITH TY and just ask him, "Is this true? Is that true? Etc." Your thoughts? Good discussion. Bentleythepup (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

By the way, as far as An Inconsistent Truth, I wasn't trying to edit that page. Again (as you said), I'm new, and I was just trying to get in my "10 edits". I honestly don't even think about that movie anymore. Bentleythepup (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I do appreciate the time you're taking to explain this. It does help. I actually copied and pasted your response and sent it to Ty and said, "This guy does have a point."

By the way, whoever did write the page on An Inconsistent Truth ... in the first paragraph, where I see it has recently been edited, it states, "Denies that there is a consensus" ... there's not a consensus. We have a list of over 31,000 scientists who disagree with the IPCC (and that's in the film). The source (if you need it) is the Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. One scientist who disagrees with Gore was a lead author of the IPCC and shared Gore's Peace Prize.

Other than that, the article is fair and spot on. And I'm one of the biggest environmentalists you'll ever meet. You ought to watch the movie ;-) Bentleythepup (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

By the way, just a personal request (as we are learning) ... in the first paragraph of An Inconsistent Truth (on the page), instead of ...

"Valentine, who denied climate change and disagreed with the scientific consensus on global warming" ...

My suggestion would be "Valentine, who denied climate change and disagreed that there is a scientific consensus on global warming" ... does that sound more neutral? I'm just asking because thousands of scientists who don't agree weren't given a voice. The government just shuts those folks down because it doesn't go with their agenda. That's not a conspiracy thing. These are environmental scientists with a very legitimate education (two of them that we interviewed who actually work for NASA and built the aqua satellites that measure global temperatures. One thing they point out that most people don't think about is that it's not C02 emissions (which is plant food) ... it's the activity of the sun. Bentleythepup (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey man, Ty told me not to worry about editing his Wikipedia page, so I'm out of this one and moving on to other things. I do have to say that it's been a good discussion and - as blunt and straightforward as you can be) I learned a lot from you and I appreciate the time you took to educate me.

I saw on your page that you like role-playing games. I'm playing Knights of the Old Republic 2 right now (same rules and format as D&D) if you haven't tried that one.

Good luck! Bentleythepup (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

So this is for an administrator. I am (politely asking for permission if I can edit the page on Ty Bollinger). I have no intention of editing anything else on Wikipedia, or vandalizing, or spamming you guys or anyone's pages.

Ty is a friend of mine, and he didn't write that page, and he's hurt that someone wrote a page that trashes him. All I'm doing is deleting the nasty comments and trying to keep the page neutral. And I even encourage you guys to look at what I edited before you decide whether to approve it or not.

So that's my request. Bentleythepup (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, belated reply. Personally I don't see a problem with changing "disagreed with the scientific consensus" to "disagreed that there is a scientific consensus". It's kind of splitting hairs though.

In any case, if you want to be unblocked, as I said before, you need to make a proper appeal and state that you will refrain from editing in areas where you have a conflict of interest, and instead propose changes on the talk page of those articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I don't agree that it's splitting hairs. There is a scientific consensus, as is clear from even the most cursory check of reliable sources. Saying that someone "disagreed with the scientific consensus" makes it clear that there is a scientific consensus, and that the person in question disagrees with it, which is exactly what the situation is. Saying that someone "disagreed that there is a scientific consensus", on the other hand, leaves open the question that the person may be right that there is no scientific consensus, which is a serious misrepresentation, as there unambiguously is one. Regarding those two very different views as so similar that the distinction is "splitting hairs" is heading dangerously towards the same ground as the false notion of "balance" which thinks that in order to be neutral we need to give equal weight to the views of people who claim that vaccination is a means of reducing risk of illness, those who claim it's a conspiracy by the United States government to wipe out Muslims by sterilizing them, and those who advocate each of the myriad other conspiracy "theories" about it. JBW (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@JBW: Many who disagree with the scientific consensus also disagree that there is a consensus. Bentleythepup unequivocally disagrees that there is a consensus and attempts to make a case for that above by referencing 31,000 scientists, if you read this entire conversation. Both meanings "disagree with consensus" and "disagree that consensus exists" are factual statements when referring to Ty Bollinger's personal beliefs. Using one or the other does not introduce a falsehood. One could even use both. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist: OK, what you say is substantially correct, and I realise that I was guilty of posting my comment without sufficient thought. It certainly seems to be true that both versions appear to be true statements about Bollinger's views, so you are right in saying that either or both could be used. However, despite the fact that above what I wrote was poorly expressed, I still think that replacing one with the other shifts the impression conveyed to an extent that goes well beyond "splitting hairs". As for the "31,000 scientists", I have not checked out what every one of them actually said, but my experience of similar claims that I have come across is that they are usually rather flimsy, lumping together people who have various different doubts about details, rather than fundamentally disagreeing with the essential premise, giving equal weight to a major researcher in the field in question and a "scientist" who is given that title because they once did some course in some "college" on a totally unrelated branch of science, and including various other ways of muddying the water. I have not studied the particular views of 31,000 scientists in this particular claim to know to what extent it is reliable or unreliable, but I certainly have enough relevant experience not to accept it as fact because someone says so. I could say much more; for example I could comment on how taking the remark "most people don't think about is that it's not C02 emissions ... it's the activity of the sun" out of context is likely to be highly misleading, but I think I've probably said enough to convey my essential point. JBW (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

My encouragement to you would be to just watch the movie "An Inconsistent Truth". It's only 89 minutes long. Anyway, good discussion :-)

- Shayne Edwards Bentleythepup (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)