User talk:Timothydw82

November 2022

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to John Ortberg, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Nick Levine (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have valid reasons for making edits on John Ortberg's page. I'd like to speak to someone who represents Wikipedia. Please contact me. Timothydw82 (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, there are some things with this Wikipedia page that are seriously off. I'm not sure who is guarding this page so fervently but I am being prevented from making any updates none of which are disparaging. I would like to speak with someone at Wikipedia. Timothydw82 (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at John Ortberg, you may be blocked from editing. Adakiko (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Ortberg The sources make those statements. Wikipedia reflects what wp:reliable sources state. Get a retraction. Adakiko (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the Ortbergs? WP:COI might be a relevant policy, although another relevant policy is WP:BLP. Maybe those two pages will give you some pointers as to how to deal with this. Although I have no connection to any of these people, I've long been perplexed by this situation. DefThree (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I know them very well. I work with John and am deeply aware of all the dynamics and details. Daniel has been beyond cruel to the family and I think it's only fair to try and at least present a more neutral and accurate representation of the situation on Wikipedia. 2601:444:100:AD40:940E:497D:D2EA:D862 (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you could help me at least unlink most of Daniel's own self promoting articles from John's bio in Wiki that would be really helpful. Daniel is bent on promoting himself through this situation and is trying to use any opportunity to direct traffic and attention to himself. Also, Johnny was never volunteering with children, but was playing on the music team with Highschool students. So other facts in this article are misleading (by Daniel). Furthermore, Daniel stating that he believes John didn't adhere to his demands because he was transgender is utterly false. John and Nancy were planning to be apart of Daniel's wedding the very week that Daniel went public with what Johnny shared with Daniel. Daniel knows full well that John and Nancy were supportive of him as transgender. It is completely and utterly speculative false and has no place in this Wikipedia report. It's nefarious. Daniel has been proven over and over to not have any factual grounds for his smearing of John and the family. It's time to stop giving place to this false smear campaign. 2601:444:100:AD40:940E:497D:D2EA:D862 (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the part about Daniel claiming that his concerns were dismissed because he's transgender. In the cited source, that statement was actually attributed to Nicole Cliffe, although I know that Daniel himself has said that. As for the rest, maybe you could post on WP:BLPN to get more eyes on this. There's supposed to be a high standard for sourcing in biographies of living people, so perhaps some of these sources don't qualify. Or perhaps they are being misrepresented somewhat. DefThree (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so much. I'm so deeply grateful. the hurt that Daniel has caused this family is beyond words. John loves Daniel very much and does not want to cause him any harm. but at least we can try and keep it fair. thank you. thank you. thank you. Timothydw82 (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as specific details of his volunteer work and interactions with minors, maybe this report could help. I kind of felt that such an investigation wasn't warranted when there hadn't even been sexual misconduct alleged, but since it exists, it's a useful resource. DefThree (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

question: how can we update what John is doing now? He isn't at Menlo Church anymore. He is the founder of a new ministry. Isn't that relevant information? Also, if there have been allegations against someone, and then investigations, and then no wrong doing or harm found--doesn't that make an entire story irrelevant? Do other Wikipedia pages list every allegation made against a person? Must these things live forever on John's Wikipedia page just because Daniel used his platform to try and ruin his father's professional life and ruin his brother's future? Timothydw82 (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it would be OK to post an External Link at the bottom to John's current ministry (and perhaps remove the old links there). If it were discussed by a valid secondary source like Christianity Today, it might be OK to mention in the body of the article, but otherwise probably not.

As for old allegations, there's really no definite answer here. The BLP noticeboard would be a good place to raise this. DefThree (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the info.

Another question, is it possible to just delete John's wikipedia page altogether? It's really not doing him any favors at this point. How would we go about doing that? Timothydw82 (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would only happen if John Ortberg were determined not to be sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. This was debated years ago, and it was kept. So it's unlikely the article would be deleted. DefThree (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DefThree. Thank you for all your help.

I spoke with John and Nancy this morning. They would like John's Wikipedia page to be removed entirely. They also let me know that Daniel is the one who created his Wikipedia account many years ago, so he is probably the Admin on the account. How can John himself express to Wikipedia that he wants his account completely removed? For privacy's sake. Please let me know. I work with John every day (you can look me up on linked in - Tim Williams). Thanks for helping us. Timothydw82 (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DefThree, I'd like to speak with someone at Wikipedia please. Timothydw82 (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm now banned. You may be banned as well if you continue with this. Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia places emphasis on "secondary" sources. Sources associated with the article subject, like the ones you added, are considered "primary" sources, and can only be used in limited circumstances. We can't simply cite sources associated with John Ortberg to report on what he is doing now. If there aren't valid independent sources for that, it's not considered important. If you were to "speak with someone at Wikipedia", they'd tell you what I've just told you.

And in case you were thinking of it, it probably wouldn't be a good idea to try to bring about the kind of source you would need. I actually did that with a different subject, and the result was bad. Not because I didn't like the point-of-view, but because important details got screwed up, and I couldn't get that fixed.

You and the Ortbergs have my sympathy, but I'm not sure there is anything to be done here. 103.82.39.42 (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks so much for the insight and response. Really appreciate it. Timothydw82 (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at John Ortberg, you may be blocked from editing. DanielRigal (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Who are you and what specifically are you referring to? Timothydw82 (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lot of good information that I added, why has that been removed? Timothydw82 (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not treat us like idiots. You removed a huge amount of relevant information from the article, which I restored. You know that. You have already admitted to a serious conflict of interests above. It's time to stop messing about with this article. DanielRigal (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not treating you like idiots. Everything I submitted was true. Do you work for Wikipedia? Timothydw82 (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. DanielRigal (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]