User talk:Brettdsteele

File:Information.svg Hello, Brettdsteele. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page :Ann E. Rondeau, 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 {{tl|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.{{#ifexpr: ({{#time: U | now}} - 1672372424) < 13150000 | {{PAGENAME}} | }} —C.Fred (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

:Yes, C. Fred, I have a conflict of interest since this section on the Steele Affair concerns myself. But I have also sought to document my selection extensively with primary sources to make my writing as objective as possible. So, how can I disclose this conflict of interest best, so the readers can read accordingly? And can I get someone from Wikipedia to edit this for me to also minimize any bias? Since I am now retired, I certainly have no financial interest in this writing. Brettdsteele (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

::One major problem is that you used primary sources. Primary courses have limited usefulness; self-published sources are even more restricted. Accordingly, the section needs to be backed up with secondary sources. Once you locate the secondary sources, you can propose the changes at Talk:Ann E. Rondeau. Independent editors will review them and, if they meet guidelines, incorporate the changes. —C.Fred (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

::I have reverted your edits because you used the same primary sources, not independent secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

:::I don’t understand. I wrote a new paragraph with only published legal opinions written by judges as well as pieces written by legal experts/attorneys. How do these represent primary sources? I though you objected to primary sources I wrote myself. All of those were eliminated in accordance to your instructions. Brettdsteele (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

::::C. Fred: Can I ask if you have an affiliation with the US Department of Defense? Brettdsteele (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

:::::I am completely independent with respect to the Rondeau article or related entities, including the US DoD. —C.Fred (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

::::Where were these opinions published? Please provide links to the scholarly journals, etc. where these non-bench opinions were published. —C.Fred (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

:::::C.Fred: Why did you cut my paragraph, yet again? What could be a more authoritative scholarly source that rulings from the DC District and DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Thousands of Wikipedia articles use such sources. You now appear to be practicing censorship for the US Department of Defense. So, unless you can call into question the objectivity of any particular sentence I have written, please refrain from cutting my paragraph about an extremely important legal development for American civil rights. Brettdsteele (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

::::::I'll just escalate this to the WP:Conflict of interest noticeboard. —C.Fred (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

::::::Not only have I opened a case at WP:COI/N, but I have also removed the material from the article again. Please review WP:Biographies of living persons, and in particular, WP:BLPPRIMARY, which states, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Your addition constitutes not only an edit by an editor with a conflict of interest, but also a violation of the biographies of living persons policy. —C.Fred (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

:::::::This is a major public official we are talking about who was the subject of four legal decisions over the past ten years. And Wikipedia is filled with references to legal decisions. Brettdsteele (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

::::::::C. Fred,

::::::::Please explain Bill Clinton’s wiki article containing a reference to the legal decision of Clinton v. Jones. Brettdsteele (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::I don't see Clinton v. Jones used as a reference. —C.Fred (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::Then click the "Clinton v. Jones" words, and you will see the original legal opinion. It is done exactly as I have done. Brettdsteele (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::So, let's cut to the chase: what exactly do you think I am writing that is false or biased? Please highlight the specific sentence and we can edit it to you satisfaction. I only want the most objective historical truth stated here. Brettdsteele (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::What you are doing that is biased is editing the article, period. You have a conflict of interest. You are using primary sources in violation of Wikipedia policy. You have yet to provide any secondary sources that show coverage of the events you're trying to add to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::There are no newspaper articles to cite because none exist. Both the liberal and conservative media have studiously ignored this story for over ten years out of what appears to be fear of the USDOD. But all I am trying to relate is the basic legal narrative based on highly reliable secondary legal sources anyone can check with ease. Yes, I suppose I have a conflict of interest but I am not hiding that fact, and if I have made any errors then editors like you can correct them. So, why are you being so dogmatic with me? All these Wikipedia policies you cite simply seek to ensure only objective truth, which is only what I seek, as well. Brettdsteele (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Which secondary sources have you sited? All I've seen have been primary sources, such as court rulings, not journalistic articles or secondary sources. Given that you've conceded that there are no newspaper articles, it sounds like there are no suitable reliable sources to verify the addition—and verifiability, not truth, is the core policy of Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Since when is a legal opinion a primary documented source generated by a historical actor, like my email messages at National Defense University. A legal opinion by three judges of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals takes primary sources and interprets them, which is the very definition of a secondary source. Brettdsteele (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Let me get this straight: you're attempting to add material to Rondeau's article based on a court case where a decision involving Rondeau was used as precedent? Because if the source is a case involving Rondeau, it's a primary source wrt Rondeau, because the judges are interpreting in the matter concerning her. —C.Fred (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::::"Both the liberal and conservative media have studiously ignored this story for over ten years"

::::::::::::::If something hasn't been covered in reliable secondary sources (for whatever reason), then it doesn't get included in Wikipedia. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::No problem: https://www.law360.com/aerospace/articles/1072217/dc-circ-revives-ex-dod-professor-s-age-bias-suit Brettdsteele (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::There is no link to the "original legal opinion". There is a link to the Wikipedia article on the case, and a reference to the Washington Post article supporting our statements about the case. —C.Fred (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::Yes, my mistake. It references the wiki article of Clinton v. jones, but that article cites the original legal rulings. So, why is that an issue? The Bill Clinton wiki still mentions the case to prove a major historical point just like I am doing. Also, what is so biased about my describing a legal campaign where I completely lost and Rondeau was completely victorious? Brettdsteele (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::See WP:BLPCRIME for similar guidance on criminal charges: unless legal matters have been broadly covered in mainstream sources, allegations against individuals are not mentioned. Thus, if Rondeau was "completely victorious", the allegations should be left out of the article, to avoid violating WP:BLP. —C.Fred (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::::But Rondeau is a public official, therefore, I have the right to spell out the published legal record associated with her leadership decisions. Again, the Clinton wiki does the same, as well as Trump’s. Brettdsteele (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::No, you do not. Please reread relevant Wikipedia guidelines including WP:BLP, WP:COI, and WP:NPOV. —C.Fred (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::“Wikipedia must get the article right. Be firm about high quality sources.” So, what makes a formal legal opinion of the federal judiciary a low quality source? Brettdsteele (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::It's a primary source—and it's a class of source that should be avoided in BLPs. —C.Fred (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::And again, if you have a problem with any bias I might have then please tell me how to correct it. Saying that I simply cannot publish this important legal narrative the American people deserve to know reflects far greater bias from you. Brettdsteele (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::If this narrative is so important, provide coverage in secondary sources such as newspapers, books, etc. Otherwise, it may not be published by anybody on Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::Sorry, but Wiki guidelines demand highly reliable sources so the truth may prevail.

:::::::::::::::::::Clearly, you have a strong biased in seeing this truth about the legal history surrounding Rondeau suppressed. So, this case need to be adjudicated by the higher ups at Wikipedia. So, please go ahead and escalate it. Brettdsteele (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::No, I have a strong concern that a user with a COI, who launched failed legal proceedings, is now using the transcripts of those proceedings to smear the article of a former supervisor. This is now hitting three major policy/guideline areas that are being infringed: WP:COI, WP:BLP, and WP:NOR. —C.Fred (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::::And for the record, the legal actions I describe concerned the US DOD. None of the legal opinions I cite involved a lawsuit against Rondeau personally. Brettdsteele (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::But these legal opinions, in lawsuits filed against DoD, went into detail describing Rondeau? That's what they would have to do to be admissible as sources. —C.Fred (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.—C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

:I'm just checking to make sure you received my formal request to be unblocked. Let me also add that I now understand that my work on Wikipedia to promote civil rights in the United States is also highly inappropriate. Brettdsteele (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

::The request added by an IP address was removed, because we cannot verify it came from you. You will need to submit your unblock request while logged in for it to be considered. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|1=Your reason here: I am writing to request that my block get removed because I recognize my mistakes in violating basic Wikipedia policies concerning biography of living persons, conflict of interest, no original research, and no primary sources. I therefore pledge to follow these policies rigorously should I be permitted to edit Wikipedia articles again. Yes, I am now embarrassed for having subjected Wikipedia to what belongs in Op-Ed pieces or essays for legal journals. And let me also express my appreciation of C.Fred for having informed me so well about basic Wiki policies. Brettdsteele (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)|decline=Upon review, I agree that, while an unblock may be possible in the future, it isn't right now. Come back in four months or so- maybe spend that time editing another Wikimedia project and also reviewing relevant guidelines here. 331dot (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)}}

What edits do you intend to make? 331dot (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

:I would like to have the opportunity to makes edits to articles in the areas of my scholarly expertise: history of science and technology, security studies, and neoclassical economics. Brettdsteele (talk)

::Do you intend to abandon editing about legal matters you are involved with and the subjects of those legal matters(in short, will you stop editing about yourself)? 331dot (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

::Let me be very clear. Yes, I commit to never again edit articles that involve my personal history. Instead, the next Wikipedia edits I am planning concern the articles of Galileo, Belidor, and Benjamin Robins. This has been an illuminating lesson just how seriously Wikipedia takes the issue of conflict of interest. Brettdsteele (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

:::{{u|Bbb23}} I think an unblock is possible here, but I would like to hear your thoughts. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

::::{{ec}}x2 {{re|331dot}} I oppose an unblock. This user's history at Wikipedia has been almost continuously disruptive. Putting aside the obvious COI-related editing for the moment, he has been generally combative, and specifically attacked users like {{U|C.Fred}}. He has edited while logged out, and I don't mean just when making his latest unblock request, but also at Sri Srinivasan. As recently as I believe January 5 (after his block) he still wanted to work on the article about his case. I see his latest request as an effort to appear more cooperative, but I don't trust the volte-face. His writing generally is unsuitable for Wikipedia as it is not in the least encyclopedic. For me to feel more confident that he sincerely wants to edit and improve Wikipedia, I think the standard offer is the best way to go. During that time, perhaps he can study Wikipedia more, and I don't mean so much policies and guidelines, but rather reading well-written articles in areas of the project that interest him so he can more reasonably be expected to edit in an acceptable style.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

:::::With regard to the personal attacks that were directed to me, I consider the unblock request to accomplish the same purposes as an apology. Since the user demonstrates a knowledge that personal attacks are disruptive, unacceptable, and in their case would be grounds for an immediate block, I do not think the personal attacks are a barrier to an unblock.{{pb}}As far as the standard offer, I am torn on the six month requirement. Blocks are not meant to be punitive, but to prevent disruption. The editing while logged out creates a tricky position of whether we need to guard against future disruption (at least over the next six months). On the other hand, if the user can demonstrate a clear, specific example of an edit they would make and the reliable source(s) that support the edit—and if the sources are truly reliable—then I would support an unblock.{{pb}}In any case, I do believe that an unblock must include a topic ban from subjects related to Ann E. Rondeau, broadly construed. —C.Fred (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

::::::With respect only to the issue of the topic ban, I agree that one is needed if the user is unblocked now or in the future, but I think it needs to be far broader than just Rondeau broadly construed. I'm not sure how it would be best crafted, but the user gets closer to it when he mentioned his "personal history". Just to be clear, I remain opposed to an unblock now. However, I would agree to a shorter-than-normal SO period, say 4 months instead of 6.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

::I have grave concerns about allowing this user to edit. He clearly does not understand the gravity of his actions. He cannot accept the fact that he had his day in court and lost, as the trial court judge, sitting as finder of fact, found that he was not credible.

::He has lashed out at the courts in intemperate language. Much of it is self-evident, but this edit attacking Judge Srinivasan (and, by implication, Judge Mehta as well) is especially concerning:

:::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Srinivasan&diff=prev&oldid=1128780845:

:::"Srinivasan in Steele v. Austin (2022) thus revealed the degree to which the federal judiciary provides senior military leaders with South Asian-style impunity when accused of violating both constitutional and basic human rights of a U.S. citizen and the obstruction of his quest for justice.... For an overview of military impunity in India, see Murali, Krishnan, “[http://Indian%20Armed%20Forces%20Act%20under%20fire%20for%20fostering%20impunity Indian Armed Forces Act under fire for fostering impunity]"

::This is a frank appeal to prejudice, implying that Judges Mehta and Srinivasan act with impunity because of their national background. And as recently as within the last week he still expressed an intent to return to the subject of his case. (See below)

::We do not need editors who display such attitudes. Kablammo (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

:Dear Goldsztajn: I really appreciate this feedbackback. Yes, I have since learned a lot about what the requirements are to write an entry for Wikipedia, and am fully prepared to rewrite this entry on Steele v. Mattis subject to those constraints. Unfortunately, my Brettdsteele account has been blocked after angering C.Paul for trying to edit Admiral Ann Rondeau’s wiki article subject to her never ending demands. So, I will gladly agree to leave her article alone if I can be unblocked to rewrite the Steele v. Mattis article subject to your editorial approval.

:Best,

:Brettdsteele Brettdsteele (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC

File:Information.svg Hello, Brettdsteele. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Steele v. Mattis (2018), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

:I'm unable to edit this Steele v. Mattis draft because it appears as though I'm permanently banned from Wikipedia, after having added some editorial observations in another article. So, please go ahead and delete my draft. 2600:8806:3200:C700:93B:75B:A7BB:CF6C (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg

Hello, Brettdsteele. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Steele v. Mattis".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply {{edit|Draft:Steele v. Mattis (2018)|edit the submission}} and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)