User talk:2603:9001:6B02:657:3883:80D6:BC76:9595

April 2023

Hello, I'm TLJ7863. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. TLJ7863 (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I recently edited Dr. Charles Pellegrino's page. Dr. Pellegrino has been my scientific mentor for over 20 years, and I noticed a great deal of errors and selective reporting on his page. Rather than feature the large volume of professional contributions he has made throughout the span of his career, his Wikipedia page features largely slanderous content, which has proven highly damaging to such a kind and genuine man's career for the past 13 years. Much of the information presented is entirely incorrect as well, and my efforts to prove this and attempt to remove the erroneous content from his page continue to be overturned. Surely, there must be an avenue to rectify all these errors and harmful content. I see and read many objective pages of public figures on Wikipedia, but Dr. Pellegrino's is gravely different - featuring mostly negative content, presumably added by a critic or professional rival, or simply a troll.

I have seen direct evidence of Dr. Pellegrino having earned his PhD for example. Victoria University at Wellington's library records department emailed his thesis, published in the peer-reviewed journal Crustaceana (and cited in other peer-reviewed research) to me directly. I have screenshots of their website where a profile for him was created in their database stating "Doctoral Degree Awarded." The page was later removed when the university no longer wished to be associated with media attention, but I have a record of the page. He was even awarded a post-doctoral. grant, which is only possible after having earned a doctorate. Sadly, Dr. Pellegrino is the victim of poor journalism and biased reporting in the media, because I assure you that he did not falsely claim to have earned a PhD, and many of his early works chronicle how he was persecuted by creationists for focusing his thesis efforts on evolution-based science. His awarded degree was placed on "Restricted Status" but was still awarded, and I have seen direct evidence of this from the university itself, because as a student, I requested his published doctoral thesis from the university records department itself, and it was explicitly digitized from print and emailed to me directly from the source itself. Regardless, Dr. Pellegrino almost never uses the title Dr. in his books at all, out of humility.

A section of the page features a "review" by Michael Parfit. But this is unfortunate, because this "reviewer" was a writer who was bumped off the 1996 Titanic expedition by the expedition leader George Tulloch himself, in favor of taking Dr. Pellegrino instead, since the latter was both a writer and scientist rather than only an author. It was a highly biased review of Pellegrino's book by a bitter source and not reflective of the content at all.

I understand that Dr. Pellegrino made a mistake trusting Joe Fuoco's claim that he had been involved with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But Dr. Pellegrino was a victim in this situation, of someone who had exaggerated their war record to be featured more prominently in history and an author's book. Pellegrino admitted his mistake, apologized, and corrected the error in a subsequent book release. Many first edition books can feature such errors. But Dr. Pellegrino did the honorable thing, by owning up to the mistake, admitting he had been "duped" and taking corrective action. Why would the single mistake in what has been an otherwise celebrated book be a career-defining moment for his entire body of work and page?

I have attempted multiple times to add positive contributions Dr. Pellegrino has made, only to be accused of "white washing" the page in Pellegrino's favor, or posting "promotional content." How are verifiable contributions to science "promotional material" but all these highlighted low points of a person's life somehow the objective truth? Is a person's worth really only the challenges they have faced? Or their rectified errors? Dr. Robert Ballard credits Pellegrino in his international bestseller "Discovery of the Titanic" for the Downblast theory for example, and naval engineer Parks Stephenson has come out in support of the theory on his Facebook page, but Wikipedia refused to allow me to add it. Michael Crichton credits Pellegrino with inspiring his novel "Jurassic Park" in his book, but again, I could not even add this to a new section I had created called "Scientific Contributions."

Nothing positive has been permissible on the page. And a lot of the negative has been refuted with evidence, but has not been removed. Whatever dedicated individual has devoted themselves to maintaining Dr. Pellegrino's page has only permitted negative content to be communicated, and at the very least, I would hope that a more well-rounded, objective overview of Dr. Pellegrino's career and contributions be posted. There is no reason to have a "controversies" section, and out of all those listed, only the Last Train from Hiroshima error is legitimate, but was also corrected... so I just do not see the purpose of this poor man suffering for such an innocent error that was addressed, in light of all the good he has done. Including having dived to the Titanic wreck, and currently working with James Cameron on Cameron's next film following Avatar, which is regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Cameron purchased rights to the book for adaptation to film). Of course, none of this has been permitted on the page...

I request your assistance in revising this page and helping Dr. Pellegrino recover from the negative light he has unfairly been cast with by it please. Thank you.

2603:9001:6B02:657:3883:80D6:BC76:9595 (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Charles R. Pellegrino, you may be blocked from editing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history at Charles R. Pellegrino shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, 2603:9001:6B02:657:3883:80D6:BC76:9595. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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 {{request edit}} 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. See also: our previous conversation at User_talk:FenrisAureus#New_to_Wikipedia- FenrisAureus ▼ (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

But I do not have a conflict of interest. I am simply aware of the facts in this situation, because I was involved with research which required Dr. Pellegrino's thesis, which has been cited by other peer-reviewed research, proving that he earned his PhD. I am not attempting to promote anything - I was merely attempting to highlight Dr. Pellegrino's contributions to science, and trying to edit his page to be objective, instead of harmful and slanderous. There is nothing objective about detailing every single low point of a person's life on a Wikipedia page, and offering no recourse for it to be addressed or rectified. There is so much on the Pellegrino page this is erroneous and harmful. Almost the entire page was dedicated to "controversies" when it could just as well simply list his works as an author and documentary scientist, and still serve an objective purpose. Dr. Pellegrino is not on trial on the internet, he is an author and scientist featured in books and documentaries, with scientific contributions that should be reported. 2603:9001:6B02:657:3883:80D6:BC76:9595 (talk) 04:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:2603:9001:6B02:657:3883:80D6:BC76:9595 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: ). Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Charles R. Pellegrino) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for block evasion: Cameron Houseman.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

---