User talk:D.wright01

Welcome!

Hi D.wright01! 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, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Pbritti (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Pbritti (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can you tell me which edit you’re referring to? I’ve been careful to cite claims in the edits, so if there’s an oversight I’ve made it would be helpful to know where.

D.wright01 (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits regarding the Supreme Head of the Church of England were original research. While the doctrinal questions regarding the verbiage of that title are fascinating, they ought to be based in sourcing. Thank you for your edits to the project; please ping me if you ever require assistance! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

noted. The edits themselves did not mention the doctrinal questions, but merely fixed the citation of the Act. I did reference Cranmer’s views in the edit summary; I did this because I wanted it to be clear to other editors that the change was notable. My concern was that it would be considered a pedantic and unnecessary edit if one wasn’t familiar with the importance of the phrase. Can you clarify if it was in fact the edit summary you were referring to? For future reference, are explanatory notes like that in the edit summary not recommended? Or are they recommended, but citation is required? I was worried about properly citing given the character limit of the edit summary. Thank you for your advice here - I’m only asking these questions so I properly understand best practices.

thanks!

D.wright01 (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Need Admin Help to Remove Problematic Label on a BLP

{{adminhelp}}

The article John Doyle (YouTube host) has text claiming that John Doyle is a "white nationalist" which is an inflammatory and potentially libelous claim to make. The Talk Page makes clear that sourcing for that claim is dubious, that the claim violates WP:BLP, and furthermore, does not follow Wikipedia style because it does not assert that he "has been referred to" as a white nationalist, but rather makes the claim as a point of fact.

The Talk Page has achieved consensus on the fact that this label obviously must be removed in accordance with WP:BLP. Despite this, editors have been continually re-inserting the label in contravention of Wikipedia policy and without discussing it on the Talk Page. Please remove this label and prevent it from being added back. Thank you!

D.wright01 (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLPN discussion. [1] Doyle describes himself as a 'white nationalist' We have multiple sources which agree. The description is entirely proper, and not remotely in violation of policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the subject himself directly rejects the usage of that label to describe him. This must be taken into account. Source here: https://x.com/RealTXPolitics/status/1517556463836798976 D.wright01 (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable source. A social media screenshot posted by a third party cannot be used as a source in a BLP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not attempting to use it in a BLP. What I'm saying is that when the source of a BLP personally denies a label that Wikipedia uses to describe him, it should be removed. D.wright01 (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IN which case, I suggest you stop pretending to understand WP:BLP policy, since it mandates nothing of the sort. We can and do regularly apply properly-sourced descriptions that a subject disagrees with. It would be absurd to do otherwise in many cases. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andy: all I'm trying to do here is ensure that the article is fair and high-quality. I really don't appreciate the continuous attacks on me personally. I would ask that you please keep this polite and professional and not resort to personal attacks. It should be noted that:

1) The subject has personally refuted the label.

2) The sources using the label cite a single anonymous X post.

3) The subject has been profiled in much more prestigious outlets (like the New York Times) and these refer to him by labels other than "white nationalist." The sources which do refer to him as such as obviously politically-biased (the sources say as much on their own websites). Obviously that must be taken into account given the nature of the article in question.

I have not made any other objections to content on the page. I think the other content is fair, well-sourced, and accurate. My only issue has been with the "white nationalist" label because I think it brings down the value of the article. D.wright01 (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sources cited do not 'cite a single anonymous X post'. Stop making shit up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, if you believe that this is not the case, please provide evidence. I have read the sources given and they appear to all use that same anonymous X post as grounds for the claim they make.

In addition, please refrain from using profanity and making personal attacks against me. This is wrong and violates Wikipedia policy about how to engage with one another. I have been civil and respectful and ask that you would do the same. Thanks. D.wright01 (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you. Provide a direct quote for each of the sources describing Doyle as a 'white nationalist' where they ascribe this assessment to this X post. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, D.Wright, for bringing this matter to the attention of BLPN. I have commented there. I regret that these discussions often seem like a bench trial conducted by hanging judges. Hopefully, new encyclopedias like Grokipedia will solve (or at least ameliorate) this problem. I have advocated at Wikipedia innumerable times for a system where disputes are settled by arbitrarily selected Wikipedians, but instead we get habitual self-appointed judges who are often pursuing an agenda, travel in packs, or at least are unusually tenacious about influencing the outcomes of as many disputes as possible. Apparently, User:Jimbo Wales wants it that way. I’m speaking up in this particular case, because labeling a person as a white nationalist seems about as disparaging as labeling the person as a racist or a fascist, and —- given the recent spate of “anti-fascist” assassinations —- could amount to a death sentence quite literally. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the above post is currently being discussed at WP:ANI. [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]