User talk:LogicalLens

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

What source says that HK police were shielding criminals?

[edit]

I see in your user page, you are part of Project Autism. Are you by any chance autistic? I don't imply that you are but I would take it into consideration and be respectful if that's the case. The reason I am reaching out is that I don't agree with your action. I explained myself here [1] however the real issue is that you need to understand on Wikipedia, we do not ever claim an opinion is a fact especially when it's politically charged. If someone says that Hong Kong police are protecting criminals - even if you believe that's a fact - it's not supported by any reliable sources and also many would disagree with that statement. Also if you are going to be presenting such opinions or controversial statements, you have to attribute them clearly to the person who is expressing that. There's no real exceptions. And that's what I did in a neutral way saying that the attacker wrote this opinion on his suicide note. The previous version was too flawed in that it didn't properly attribute the source for a controversial opinion and presented it as a loaded fact. That's why I edited to Fix that and hope you can understand that rationale.IP49XX (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version said: "Hong Kong police allegedly sheltering criminals". Therefore, I don't see why you think that states his opinion as a fact. LogicalLens (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh and this is why I dislike Wikipedia when dealing with these kinds of debates. Please ask yourself who said that? The attacker said that and is not a reliable source. You can't present his opinions as a fact when no reliable sources are saying these loaded statements. In these cases, u need to attribute a source for who is saying that. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV It was the attacker who said that. And so you need to attribute the opinion (not a validated fact) to the source and avoid making his opinion as if it's a fact. Wikipedia doesn't take sides in politics. I really do not want to spend days debating the obvious so I recommend you go to Wikipedia:Teahouse page and ask them and they will back me up on that. But do not edit war and ask others if you don't believe me. IP49XX (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what your level of English is but "allegedly" is "used when something is said to be true but has not been proved".[2] LogicalLens (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only a reliable source can make such a statement. My English is fine and I keep telling you that the source of that statement is not suitable as an authoritative source. If you still disagree, then I suggest WP:3O where you request Third opinion where a more experienced editor can tell you the same thing. This is also the basic fundamentals and I shouldn't even have to explain this to other editors so I recommend you please just talk to others on this and learn what reliable sources are and proper attribution requirements. Like in Wikipedia:Teahouse where experienced editors will tell you the exact same thing. IP49XX (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree with my newest change? LogicalLens (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's better than the old version as at least it now attribute who is saying what. But it's not the best english. As a compromise, I can accept your version but I made some minor grammatical improvements to it, but leaving your version mostly untouched. I hope this resolves everything. Take care of yourself buddy. IP49XX (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

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.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPRIMARY

[edit]

Hello LogicalLens, regarding your latest edit to the article about Chris Adler (in May, I know, it's been a month), please have a look at WP:BLPPRIMARY. Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I just clicked through the recent changes and saw that an IP user removed sourced content without an edit summary and reverted it. Next time, I know better. LogicalLens (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

[edit]

Information icon Hello, LogicalLens. 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 article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

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, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm templating you because your second edit here is to an active DRN, and most of your edits (and cross-wiki activity) have been pushing a specific point of view about autism. Adding to that, any potential collaboration with individuals off-wiki can be seen as WP:CANVASSING and should be disclosed. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @ChildrenWillListen.
Like many editors on autism-related pages, I am autistic myself. It is generally accepted that this does not constitute a conflict of interest, just as a woman editing articles on menopause would not. I have no financial, organizational, or other off-wiki affiliations related to my edits, nor do I collaborate with other editors outside of Wikipedia.
It is true that I, like any editor, have personal viewpoints. However, my edits have consistently aimed to improve Wikipedia. Therefore, I have, for example, spent significant time checking citations for WP:MEDRS-compliance, removing weak ones, and adding stronger secondary sources. This tends to work against my perspective, since neurodiversity-related research is often newer and more reliant on primary sources. Other editors have acknowledged these efforts as improving article quality.[3][4]
Regarding content, the prominence of the neurodiversity perspective is increasing in reliable literature (e.g., see [5][6]). This means that updating articles will automatically bring more of that framing into Wikipedia articles. That is not advocacy, but adherence to WP:NPOV and WP:V, which require reflecting the balance of published sources. I also engage in civil discussion on talk pages. While autism is a controversial topic, my positions in major debates (such as choosing "condition" over "disorder") have been supported by multiple experienced editors.
As for my second edit being at WP:DRN, I had been following the autism talk page for some time before creating an account. It took me a while to decide to participate, partly because of indecision about what username to choose. It is also typical for autistic people to focus deeply on specific areas of interest. Currently that is autism; had I joined a few years earlier, my edits would have been concentrated in other topic areas. Concentrated editing does not by itself indicate a conflict of interest.
My goal has always been to improve Wikipedia through reliable sourcing and constructive discussion. LogicalLens (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]