Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson

Improving readability etc

Edits made on this version are explained below:

• Tightened up and simplified lede with "activist" because there are multiple references to "activist" but couldn't find any for "social commentator"
• Added "Early Career" / "Religious Leadership" to section heads to improve readability
• Added sentence on positions on christian persecution and Christian philosophy of investment
• Tightened up section on legal award with figure used in source (i.e. 1.2 million)
• Added positions on fiscal policy and removal of church official / improved citation to FINRA filing

aim of edits to improve readability and accuracy according to references

we should be good to discuss Cypresscross (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

These seem like they'd be good improvements. Politico16 (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC) Sock puppet

Thanks. Probably will break down changes to one edit at a time so they are easier to track. The goal is to improve the accuracy and readability of the article. Further discussion welcome Cypresscross (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I will take a closer look when I have some time and let you know my thoughts. Politico16 (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Sock puppet

The WSJ text was removed from "Hedge Fund Manager" section because it was refuted / didn't follow BLP guidelines. Also, since there was no other mention of specific stock investments, it also did not make any sense. It may have a place on the Lemelson Capital page. Further discussion welcome Cypresscross (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Being refuted isn't sufficient. What BLP guidelines does it violate? Grayfell (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems to run afoul of 'challenged or likely challenged', as well as 'contentious material' and 'avoid victimization' part of BLP's. The text wasn't totally clear. I was thinking about adding this back into the article in some way when you made the change and was just considering how to improve the readability since there is no mention of specific stocks in that section. I appreciate the other clean-up work you did on some of my edits. Cypresscross (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

"Challenged" implies that sources do not support the statement. The paragraph attributes the claims to the WSJ, are you saying that the WSJ doesn't say these things? How is this victimization? Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Both the letter and the spirit of the BLP guidelines seem to indicate that this material should be removed. If the subject vehemently denies the content of the article why include it? WP standards may have to eventually address the emergence of apparently fake and distorted news. There is an article by Ray Dalio specifically about Copeland (the author of the WSJ article) producing fake and distorted news. Although Copeland also apparently wrote fake and/or distorted things about Dalio, those things, understandably, do not appear on his WP page. The main stream media referred to Copeland's article as an "attack piece", which the BLP guidelines it seems would have editors avoid. Clearly Copeland in this case also had a significant bias/agenda to produce an image of the subject in an unfavorable and inaccurate light Cypresscross (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Delio is not neutral, he's not an expert on journalism, nowhere does that article mention Lemelson, and Delio's opinion of Copeland or the WSJ is pure distraction. The "mainstream media" did not refer to it as "an attack piece" in that source, Delio did in an op-ed! The subject of the unflattering source didn't like it, which is totally unremarkable. In both cases, the WSJ stands by their reporting, so is the WSJ fake news? C'mon now. If you don't think the WSJ is a reliable source for this, take it to WP:RSN, but don't expect to get very far. Wikipedia isn't a platform for PR or self-promotion, and removing a reliably sourced criticism just because the subject doesn't like it would be an offensive abuse of Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The text also lacks context with no other mention of stocks on the page – diminishes readability. Need to add discussion of involvement with stocks or move to Lemelson Capital page where there is already a context. Cypresscross (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree that this diminishes readability. Even if so, that would be a thin excuse to remove the content entirely. His statements of having the divine gift of precognizance belongs here more than it belongs at his company's article. Grayfell (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This entry then needs some context about stocks or to be moved to the Lemelson Capital page where the context already exists. The comments, without a context diminish the readability of the page. Cypresscross (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Also there are no references for the terms "social commentator" and "former businessman", which even if accurate still need references. "Activist" was added to the lede because that term is found and used in multiple references. Cypresscross (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's stick with one issue per talk section, for now. What context do you mean? Don't worry for now about sources, give me a rough example on this talk page of the kind of context you're talking about. I don't see any readability issues with this, and the term 'readability' is too vague to work with. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

There are a number of references about moving shares prices, with that information, the quote would have a clear context. Since that detail already exists on the Lemelson capital page, that section would make more sense there. Cypresscross (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The section head on philanthropy makes sense because of the foundation. Also, the quote is cited. Cypresscross (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

That ignores my question. Give me an actual example of what "context" you are talking about. As for the puffery, that reason is utterly insufficient. This isn't the place to promote Lemelson, and that's all that accomplishes. He has said many, many things. Why is this quote significant, and why does it justify reducing readability by adding PR-style bloat to the section header? Additional, as already explained, section headers use sentence case, not title case, per MOS:HEADINGS. Grayfell (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The quote is taken from the same source that you took a quote from above. Why is one acceptable and not the other? I am going to under that change, because the addition adds to the article. I also have left a comment for you on your talk page. Cypresscross (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Sooner or later, editing warring ends badly. The quote is puffery which provide no meaningful information about Lemelson's activities or position. That he is a priest who advocates giving to the poor is neither surprising, nor informative, but it is vaguely flattering. That he dressed the statement up in pretentious language proves nothing, either. What does this quote actually tell the reader that wasn't already painfully obvious? Nothing. That's why it's puffery. Grayfell (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

So there are two quotes from the same person in the same article, but one you judge as "puffery" because it is as you say "vaguely flattering", but the other you argued had to be included because it was "unflattering". that doesn't make any sense. The goal here is not to include something because it is either "flattering" or "unflattering", but rather because it is notable and encyclopedic and reflects something of the subject. The quote that I added discusses philanthropy in the language of finance, which is notable of the subject and speaks to a specific and seemingly uncommon view of philanthropy. Cypresscross (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

If we take 'flattering' and 'unflattering' out of the equation, than you still haven't answered my objection. You say it's notable and encyclopedic, but I do not agree. I see it as routine PR-speak. At best it's kind of a... cute way to say something, but what is he actually saying? Is it an uncommon view? How so? Claiming that he has a divine gift for finance is surprising and informative. Saying that he sees giving to the poor as very important is utterly expected and banal. Grayfell (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying that WSJ would have quoted something that was routine "PR-speak" to use your words? I think the description is unique and indicative of a particular viewpoint and certainly notable and encyclopedic (WSJ must have thought so too) - the quote isn't just saying that giving to the poor is important, it is saying that it should be seen through the lens of the language of finance, as "capital allocation". Cypresscross (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The WSJ quoted Lemelson saying something that is, being generous, vaguely pithy. That's about all that can be said about the WSJ, here. "...it is saying that it should be seen through the lens of the language of finance..." This is WP:OR. If the source actually said that, the article could say that. It doesn't. It just quotes Lemelson using finance-speak to say that giving to the poor is good. This is pretty obvious when laid out in simple language, and anything that reiterates obvious info should do so for a good reason. Grayfell (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You are rewording the quote to change the meaning by "simplifying" it, but its not a simple quote. The meaning of any quote can be changed by simplifying it. Further, the quote says that philanthropy is the "supreme" capital allocation decision, that is, above all others (that giving to the poor is the most important thing you can do with capital). That is by no means a generic or commonly held viewpoint. It looks like we have a disagreement and an impasse Cypresscross (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

If it's not a simple quote, than it should be paraphrased to more clearly explain what it means. By itself it's either too vague, or too cryptic, to be meaningful. Since no consensus has been reached, I am reverting to the WP:STATUSQUO. Grayfell (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• I added a subsection on "Claims of foresight" (here) after reading and considering Grayfell comments above that "Claiming that he has a divine gift for finance is surprising and informative" (although the quote doesn't say for "finance"). After considering the comment I now agree and think that since the quote is in there it is more readable and structured with the sub heading given the weight of the quote that Grayfell points out. Although because it makes no specific mention of being related to finance I wonder if this quote and section should be independent of the "hedge fund" section? Also I added the word "profile" as a more accurate description of the WSJ piece and the short documentary is a documentary (documentaries can certainly be short) - although "short film" might also work to describe it - I will try reworking.Cypresscross (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Also I agree with lede description of "social commentator" and "former businessman" as accurate, but can not find any references to support these terms. A common word I keep finding in the references is "activist" which should probably be added to the lede. Any help in locating sources on these terms is much appreciated. Cypresscross (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Saying "profile" is more accurate doesn't make it more accurate. It's a slightly pretentious way to make "article" sound more impressive, but imparts no additional information. Many, many news outlets supplement their articles with video content now, but padding this out to be described as a documentary is a distraction. The video clip has nothing at all to do with the point being made, so it again seems like promotional filler.

Do not add the word activist. It does have its place, but, as has been discussed at length here before, it's overly broad and prone to misuse as a WP:PEACOCK. It's flattering without saying anything. Yes, some sources call him that. Being verifiable is not, by itself, sufficient for inclusion. Grayfell (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any further feedback on "claims of foresight" as a subsection per discussion above?

The WSJ piece is a profile, that's not a matter of opinion, it's a fact. There is no pretense to the word nor does it make it any more "impressive". The video content is not supplementary material its a short film/documentary that WSJ produced on the subject, undoubtedly with significant resources. The WSJ documentary video may be the single most notable coverage of the subject - and I agree with you, the subject section being worked on is probably not the right place to include it - but it should get discussed somewhere in the article (in fact WSJ released the documentary independently of the article and under a different title) see here

I agree the word "Activist" could be prone to misuse but in the investing world it is not a "puff" or "peacock" word, it just describes a certain type of investor which is why the term is so often used in media references about the subject (what other category of investors would the subject fall into?)

Can you help provide any sources for "social commentator" or "former businessman" - if there are no sources that can be found the "source needed" tag should be added, or perhaps the words should be removed (even if they are accurate descriptions).Cypresscross (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The WSJ's video portal isn't independent of the WSJ. They did not 'release' this anywhere other than WSJ. Coverage of Lemelson, such as this video, could be used for content about Lemelson, but commentary about the video would need WP:SECONDARY sources. The amount of resources the WSJ uses to make their own products is totally irrelevant to this article.

This Wikipedia article is as much a 'profile' as the WSJ one, but we don't use that word without a very good reason. It's implying something without imparting any substantial information.

"Activist" is a peacock word which also happens to have a legitimate meaning in certain contexts. If he were strictly a finance guy, I would accept the term as being useful, as long it it were handled carefully. Since 1. he's also known for religious activity, and 2. this article has a long, painful history of promotional content being crammed into it, I think the term should be avoided. At a minimum, it should be very carefully explained before being included in the lede. Ambiguity must be avoided, here.

Social commentator and former businessman are both concise summaries of sources already found. That these sources do not necessarily use this exact phrase is a distraction. If we both agree that they are accurate, and sources support these labels, what's the problem? Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any further feedback on "claims of foresight" as a subsection per discussion above?

What's the "good reason" we don't want to use the more accurate term "profile"?

Maybe you can make a suggestion (that avoids "ambiguity") or propose text on how to clarify the subjects work in investing, which belongs to a specific category that reliable secondary sources have frequently cited as "activism" and more specifically referred to the subject repeatedly as an "activist".

Even "concise summaries" should have reliable secondary sources, what do you mean by using words for which no source can be found is "a distraction"? The fact we both happen to agree on their accuracy doesn't negate the need for sourcing. Sources may well be out there, but need to be found, a "citation needed" tag added, or possibly the text removed. Cypresscross (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I read that the first time.

I just explained the reason. I do not accept that 'profile' is more accurate than 'article'. It is, however, more pretentious. Repeating your opinion that it's "more accurate" doesn't make it more accurate. In this context it's a journalism buzzword, and it provides no relevant information for the section it's used to support. Whether it's an article or a 'profile' has no impact on Lemelson's supernatural abilities, so it's much better to use simpler language.

My "suggestion" is to leave out the term completely, which I've already said multiple times on this talk page. If you insist on including it, you can propose a way to do that on this talk page. It would have to explain or indicate what 'activist' means in investing circles to avoid (inadvertent) peacockery.

You are misrepresenting what I wrote. We already have sources. That's my point. We do not need sources to use these exact phrases in order to use them ourselves in this article. As an encyclopedia, articles summarize published content. These phrases in the lede are summaries of sourced content in the body of the article. If you do not agree with that, you will have to more clearly explain why. They are neutral and accurate according to sources. There is no sourcing issue here that I can see. Grayfell (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Policy positions

I've re-worked the entry on policy positions to shorten and make text more encyclopedic, and after looking at the other references, agree with the risk of citation over-kill pointed out by Grayfell edit here. It might make sense to have a new sub-section on political or policy positions. I invite any suggestions on further improvement Cypresscross (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it would absolutely not make sense to have a new subsection. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promoting Lemmelson's ideas, which has already been pointed out to you many times. The Federal Reserve is not linked to foreign trade policy merely because you slapped them together in a single sentence supported by an obscure source. Do not edit this article if you cannot maintain a neutral point of view. Grayfell (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The the edit(s) were made from a strictly NPOV. The section on the federal reserve was combined with the foreign policy edit in order to tighten the text - the source was certainly not obscure. The text can easily be separated / parsed out. Cypresscross (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Section title "Hedge fund manager & legal issues"

This section is about his activities as hedge fund manager, whatever that may be, including legal or whatever else. Pushing a narrative of a hedge fund manager with legal issues in the section title is lamentably biased and violates WP:BLP.

• The same section also contains positive things such as he was ranked in the top-three hedge funds. Do we rather call the section "Hedge fund manager & honors"? Why are we choosing "legal issues" and not "honors"? They are all related to his being a hedge fund manager, it goes without saying.
• The title doesn't even make sense. It says this section concerns his activities as a hedge fund manager, and his legal issues. Why are these topics grouped together in the same section? Unless..
• ..the title is pushing the narrative that he is a hedge fund manager with legal issues. This is POV, biased and violates WP:BLP.

Reverting and ignoring an extended discussion isn't how Wikipedia works. -- GreenC 00:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, GreenC. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Selective enforcement

Removed this source for now:

Alpert, Bill. "Hedge Fund Alleges SEC Bias in Short-Selling Case". www.barrons.com. Retrieved 2020-09-12.

At this point there is some evidence but no ruling, it is still being investigated. It may or may not have any bearing on the case. This is the sort of thing lawyers use but it's not the sort of thing for a Wikipedia article at this point WP:NOTNEWS. -- GreenC 13:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, but there is actually a ruling cited in the article. In fact, it is the only article in the whole section to cite an actual court ruling from a judge.199.188.176.137 (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It says “[T]he court finds that the defendant here has asserted enough facts, even if just barely so, to warrant discovery on his claim of selective enforcement and bias.” This only means they are investigating the ("barely" made) claims of bias. It doesn't mean there is bias. You have distorted this into a multi-paragraph defense of Lemelson that reads like he is innocent and the victim of a conspiracy. At best this discovery might merit a single sentence in the previous paragraph to the effect "The SEC is investigating Lemelson's claim of bias in the case". This is Wikipedia, not a forum to make a case. Also the DealMaker source is unreliable and sensationalist. -- GreenC 13:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The article in Barron's says much more than just that and specifically cites to the Judges ruling with exact language. The addition made is largely an exact quote from the article. Nowhere in the article does it say the SEC or anyone else is "investigating" these claims. What the judge ruled, is that there was evidence of selective enforcement and bias. The edit made does not say "there is bias" it only adds what was reported in Barron's, which is probably one of the most important and reliable financial news outlets available. There is no "defense" as you say, and nothing was added that discussed "innocence" or the "victim of a conspiracy." There is no "distortion" in the edits, they are largely quoting right from Barron's, which is quoting directly from the Judge's ruling - that is as neutral and well-referenced as you can get.199.188.176.137 (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Also you say in your comment above that "it reads like he is innocent" - are you writing from any other perspective? In the US legal system, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The judge's clear ruling on the evidence of the SEC case is notable and should carry more weight than the allegations themselves. Allegations are only that, allegations. 199.188.176.137 (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

"everyone is innocent until proven guilty" .. Wikipedia is not a court room, this section now reads like a defense of Lemelson amplifying the things that make him look like a victim, it is no longer NPOV. The essence of it is this: In his ruling, Judge Cabell found that Lemelson had asserted enough facts “to warrant discovery on his claim of selective enforcement and bias”. Note it says "claim" ie. this is Lemelson's claim, not Cabells ruling. It also says "warrant discovery" ie. further investigation, it is not established there was bias, it remains Lemelson's claim. You have made this into an extended multi-paragraph defense of Lemelson including the addition of a sensationalist unreliable source DealMaker. -- GreenC 14:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

NPOV failed when you stated "as if he is innocent" (that's when YOU turned it into a courtroom) - no point in trying to turn it around. There was no POV expressed, 90% of the edits were direct quotes right out of Barron's - so really what you are saying is that you are refuting the reliability of Barron's as a source. Again the edit correctly cited a highly reliable source (Barron's) verbatim (with just a few words in between to join quotes), which again cited, verbatim, the judges ruling. Perhaps you don't like what the reporting says, but that doesn't make it unreliable. Barron's is a reliable third-party source with an NPOV and accurate reporting, and in fact, given the length of this feature is by far the most extensive and reliable reporting on the matter that can be found. 199.188.176.137 (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't apply to talk pages and anyway you are misrepresenting what I said spinning and twisting it around. The POV is in the WP:WEIGHT of coverage and selection of quotes. -- GreenC 15:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

IF NPOV doesn't apply to talk pages, why did you say I was "amplifying the things that make him look like a victim, it is no longer NPOV" when I didn't change a single word of the Barron's reporting and you claimed my comments (on the talk page) in response to your POV comment about "innocent" were no longer NPOV? Now when you apply the same standard to yourself, you say: "NPOV doesn't apply to talk pages" - you must realize that is a contradiction. You began this thread with a false comment, namely, that there was "no ruling" - that is incorrect, there was a ruling. You then went on to suggest that my exact quote of the Barron's article somehow "distorted this into a multi-paragraph defense of Lemelson that reads like he is innocent and the victim of a conspiracy" - even though the edit did nothing of the sort and said none of that. How can an exact quote be a distortion unless you are really intending to claim a neutral reliable third-party source (in this case Barron's) is distorting? If that's your claim, what sources are reliable?

The Barron's article is very long - I invite your edits and improvements on what was added today, particularly if you think there is some other part of the article that is worth including. As far as I can tell Barron's is the most exhaustive, reliable, and neutral source available on the subject.199.188.176.137 (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

This all looks depressingly familiar. See above and the two archives. IP – WP:DUCK applies. I have undone your edits. Please refrain from editing the article directly. You may request changes be made on this page, using Template:Request edit.  —SMALLJIM  15:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The wholesale revision of well-referenced edits is not appropriate. There is an active discussion on the talk page that is ongoing, please add your comments for discussion here before undoing edits. Don't simply make destructive edits - it adds nothing to WP. 199.188.176.137 (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

SMALLJIM revert wars are harmful - high-frequency reversion, such as those you are doing, make the page history less useful, make it hard for other people to contribute, and flood recent changes and watchlists. You have provided no explanation for your destructive edits, and have not made any positive contribution. Based on a cursory review, you seem to be projecting some sort of ownership over the page, which is a problem.199.188.176.137 (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

By all means continue discussion on this page. When consensus is reached, any appropriate changes can be made to the article.  —SMALLJIM  16:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

GreenC (hi!): you've spent more time considering this latest outburst of editing than me. Do you think any of the changes made warrant inclusion?  —SMALLJIM  16:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

As you probably know, reverting can be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia. Thus, fair and considered thought should be applied to all reversions given all the above.

Here are some Good reasons to revert: 1) The main purpose of reversion is to undo vandalism or other disruptive edits. If you see an edit that you're sure was intended by its author to damage Wikipedia, and it does, there is no need for further consideration. Just revert it. In the case of a good-faith edit, a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement. This is often true of small edits. 2) Whenever you believe that the author of an edit was simply misinformed, made a mistake, or did not think an edit through, go ahead and revert. If that editor (or anyone else) re-reverts, you will know it is more than that, and you should be more conservative in deciding whether to revert it again. 3) Another kind of acceptable reversion is an incidental one. A Wikipedia editor is not expected to investigate the history of an article to find out if an edit being considered is a reversion of some prior edit.  —The edits made today don't fall into any of those categories. 

Here are some bad reasons to revert: 1) Reversion is not a tool for punishing an editor or retaliating or exacting vengeance. No edit, reversion or not, should be made for the purpose of teaching another editor a lesson. 2) Do not revert an edit as a means of showing your disapproval of the edit summary. 3) Do not revert an edit because you need more time to determine whether you agree with the edit.

I'm going to undo your inappropriate reverts. You may join the discussion on this page before making any further destructive edits to the page.199.188.176.137 (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

SMALLJIM First, without cause, you demean the accurate, well-thought-out and well-sourced edits by unfairly referring to them, for whatever reason, as an "outburst". Second, you seem to indicate you have little knowledge of what the edits were about, given you are looking to another editor to decide on the value of the edits for you, affirming your complete lack of a legitimate reason for removing them in the first place (Did you even read or review the sources?). Lastly, rather than respond to the neutral communication above regarding revert wars, you chose instead to repeatedly delete the talk page discussion. Stop projecting ownership over the page (by trying to intimidate other editors) so other editors can participate. There is an open Rfc below as you can see.199.188.176.137 (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC about unexplained reverts of substantial, well-referenced edits

Rfc about unexplained reverts of substantial, well-referenced edits: Should well-referenced, thoughtful NPOV edits, with substantial citations be removed repeatedly by an unusually interested editor, in this case SMALLJIM? Here are the repeated, unexplained reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emmanuel_Lemelson&diff=978051356&oldid=978051058199.188.176.137 (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The editor in question, SMALLJIM is also repeatedly deleting discussion on the talk page related to the edits, making it impossible to resolve this matter through communication.199.188.176.137 (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

DUCK

WP:DUCK applies. See here for example (and most of the rest of both of this page's archives: 1, 2).

199.188.176.137 is, like the predecessor editors, clearly not here to improve Wikipedia, but to improve Lemelson's prestige. Typical COI stuff. I agree with GreenC's comments above - we've both experienced the severe and persistent COI editing accompanied by determined arguing in this and related articles before, and I don't propose that we allow another bout of time-wasting for such an obvious DUCK case. I've reverted the IP's edits again and issued a final warning for disruptive editing. As noted above, IP is welcome to request changes on this page. A person who's here in good faith would understand the need for this and be willing to abide by our rules.  —SMALLJIM  19:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit / Revert War by SMALLJIM

Looking back at the history of this page, it's remarkable how much control SMALLJIM, single-handedly has asserted over the page (including removing enormous amounts of what appears to be well-referenced edits). Though there is an open Rfc, he ignores it. Though there is an open discussion on the talk page, he ignores that too. In fact, he deletes the discussion on the talk page, apparently in an effort to hide it? He also deletes the warnings on his talk page, apparently to hide those too. Though all the edits conformed both to the spirit and the letter of WP guidelines, SMALLJIM falsely believes it is an "us and them" scenario, with anyone who agrees with him being one of "us" and if someone interferes with his control of a page, they are "one of them," that is demonstrated in his comment "willing to abide by 'our' rules" as if the rules were somehow his, and WP his personal site. First SMALLJIM asked GreenC for guidance, then he claims to speak for GreenC, though GreenC has yet to respond. This is deeply troubling conduct for a WP editor. SMALLJIM appears to have some sort of emotional or personal connection to the subject, which is at best bias and at worst, obsessive and needs to back away from attempting to exert control over the page so that other editors can participate. I'm going to wait for other editors to respond to the Rfc, then revert the edits which should never have been undone, I'm also going to study the page history carefully to see what other viable, well-referenced edits SMALLJIM might have removed, and ensure that everything that complies with WP guidlines is added back.199.188.176.137 (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

As can be seen, by this edit, SMALLJIM, clearly has some sort of agenda with the page and the subject. His edits appear to be driven by retalitory feelings rather than WP guidelines especially when he feels any editor interferes with his absolute control over the page. This seems like convincing evidence that there is some relationship between SMALLJIM and the subject. 199.188.176.137 (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)