Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
Thenightaway (talk | contribs) →Stalking: new section |
||
Line 152: | Line 152: | ||
: {{ping|Orville1974}} Believe me, I’m not a fan of Jones, but i don’t think it’s relevant to his bio. I tried something I learned from a user in the Hillary Clinton section of my talk page. a user took something out of Hillary Clinton’s page that had been there a while and I asked him to state his case for taking it out but he said he didn’t need to and that the burden of proof is on the person wanting it to say. [[User:Dy3o2|Dy3o2]] ([[User talk:Dy3o2#top|talk]]) 06:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC) |
: {{ping|Orville1974}} Believe me, I’m not a fan of Jones, but i don’t think it’s relevant to his bio. I tried something I learned from a user in the Hillary Clinton section of my talk page. a user took something out of Hillary Clinton’s page that had been there a while and I asked him to state his case for taking it out but he said he didn’t need to and that the burden of proof is on the person wanting it to say. [[User:Dy3o2|Dy3o2]] ([[User talk:Dy3o2#top|talk]]) 06:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC) |
||
:: [[WP:BRD]] except in the case of [[WP:BLP]]. Almost everywhere, the expectation is you 1. take an action/be bold (by adding or removing content), then 2. someone reverts your action, then 3. you discuss it on the talk page if you want to put it back/take it out again. Some editors are a little more stubborn and won't go to the talk page until the second or third revert/addition. But if make a point of going to the talk page before reverting or re-adding a third time and hashing it out, you'll find other editors are quick to jump in to discuss the issue while supporting you by removing what you were trying to take out, or re-adding what you were trying to put in, because you're showing good faith. (Everybody gets 3 reverts to the content per 24 hours, so even stubborn editors get stuck accepting the change until the clock runs out while the discussion take place, since a 4th revert on their part gets them an automatic block for at least 24 hours). ''However'' in the case of living people, if an editor adds BLP to the removal's edit summary (or a revert of your addition), they are basically claiming that the 3RR rule doesn't apply since the person is living and the information's inclusion may be controversial. In that case, continuing to insert or reinsert the information into the article before consensus is reached can get you blocked ''even if'' they exceed the 3RRs and you don't, since the protection of personal information and avoidance of including derogatory information on an individual unless it's well sourced is a key policy on Wikipedia. <br> As for the Clinton content, I actually chuckled a little when it was removed, since nobody realized it was in there until you pointed it out. By then it was too late for you to try to just put it back in. My gut still tells me we're giving it undue weight, but Clinton's autobiography and the re-emergence of it during her campaign caused enough media attention that it's difficult for us to ignore, so I proposed it's inclusion again in the talk page discussion. <b>[[User:Orville1974|<span style="color: darkred;">Orville1974</span>]]</b> ([[User talk:Orville1974|talk]]) 06:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC) |
:: [[WP:BRD]] except in the case of [[WP:BLP]]. Almost everywhere, the expectation is you 1. take an action/be bold (by adding or removing content), then 2. someone reverts your action, then 3. you discuss it on the talk page if you want to put it back/take it out again. Some editors are a little more stubborn and won't go to the talk page until the second or third revert/addition. But if make a point of going to the talk page before reverting or re-adding a third time and hashing it out, you'll find other editors are quick to jump in to discuss the issue while supporting you by removing what you were trying to take out, or re-adding what you were trying to put in, because you're showing good faith. (Everybody gets 3 reverts to the content per 24 hours, so even stubborn editors get stuck accepting the change until the clock runs out while the discussion take place, since a 4th revert on their part gets them an automatic block for at least 24 hours). ''However'' in the case of living people, if an editor adds BLP to the removal's edit summary (or a revert of your addition), they are basically claiming that the 3RR rule doesn't apply since the person is living and the information's inclusion may be controversial. In that case, continuing to insert or reinsert the information into the article before consensus is reached can get you blocked ''even if'' they exceed the 3RRs and you don't, since the protection of personal information and avoidance of including derogatory information on an individual unless it's well sourced is a key policy on Wikipedia. <br> As for the Clinton content, I actually chuckled a little when it was removed, since nobody realized it was in there until you pointed it out. By then it was too late for you to try to just put it back in. My gut still tells me we're giving it undue weight, but Clinton's autobiography and the re-emergence of it during her campaign caused enough media attention that it's difficult for us to ignore, so I proposed it's inclusion again in the talk page discussion. <b>[[User:Orville1974|<span style="color: darkred;">Orville1974</span>]]</b> ([[User talk:Orville1974|talk]]) 06:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC) |
||
== Stalking == |
|||
Stop systemically going through my edits and reverting them. It's [[WP:HARASSMENT]]. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 17:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:48, 6 June 2019
Welcome
|
June 2019
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ben Shapiro, 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 the sandbox for that. Thank you. Orville1974 (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
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 notice boards.
- 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 Ben Shapiro, you may be blocked from editing. Please reference WP:POINT Orville1974 (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Ben Shapiro.
Please reference WP:POINT. If you would like to remove large sections of an article, please discuss it on the article's talk page. Disruptive edits are not constructive. Orville1974 (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
You currently appear to be 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. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Grayfell (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I just want to inform you since you are new here that editors are not allowed to make 3 reverts per 24 hours in one article. This could get you blocked. You can save yourself from a block by reverting your revert (self-revert) .--SharabSalam (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: thanks for the info, I didn't know that. Dy3o2 (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Pointy behavior warning
I am warning you again about WP:POINTy behavior. Your edit to the April Ryan article was disruptive, and undermines your credibility as an editor, as it came in the midst of your arguments regarding the inclusion of death threats in the Ben Shapiro article. Changing one article to make a point about another is unacceptable. I understand that we're all humans, and will always have biases, but Wikipedia relies on editors to present a WP:NPV and to edit constructively. Orville1974 (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
The editors who removed my factual addition of a death threat against ben shapiro was just as disruptive and bias as I was and no one points out the hypocrisy on their pages but just accepts their modifications, additions and removals more easily. Dy3o2 (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
June 2019
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at NPR. Repeated WP:POINTy behavior. You blanked an entire section of this article in response to a disagreement with another editor. You've been warned about making unconstructive, pointy edits to multiple articles over the past two days April Ryan, Ben Shapiro, and now NPR, yet you continue to make them anyway. You've also been told by several editors to utilize the corresponding article talk pages, but continue to unilaterally make controversial edits to these articles. Maintaining a WP:NPV is critical to constructive edits to Wikipedia. Orville1974 (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
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:Dy3o2 reported by User:Orville1974 (Result: ). Thank you. Orville1974 (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Un/Block
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. El_C 18:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I misread the timeline. El_C 20:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Please read the template bellow carefully:
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Template:Z33 El_C 20:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I did now also effectively restrict you from those three articles for a week. Please take the time to acquaint yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then try to gain consensus for your changes on those articles respective talk pages. Good luck and happy editing! El_C 20:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Please remember to sign your edits
I know there are a lot of acronyms and policies to remember, but please include 4 of these:~ when making comments. It saves other editors a bit of work in trying to figure out who said what. I've added a note that you've requested the addition to the Shapiro article as both the initial request and your follow-up request after discussion were both unsigned. On another note, thank you engaging in discourse on the talk pages to gain consensus. It looks like the death threat will be incorporated into the article. Orville1974 (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for being patient with me and working with me. I hope I didn't ruin your day too much yesterday, I apologize for any offenses and I hope you have a good day today. Dy3o2 (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Hillary Clinton page
Hi, regarding the section you just reverted against me, isn’t the procedure to leave it in until consensus to take it out is reached? The previous users took it out without discussing it first. It’s inappropriate to take it out and then have a discussion about it, am I right? Dy3o2 (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not when WP:BLP is involved. From the policy:
"To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material."
-- Begoon 04:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying for me. I accept. Dy3o2 (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Again
I just wanted to drop by to let you know your suggested edit regarding the death threat was added to the Ben Shapiro article (although, I hope by now you're getting familiar enough with Wikipedia's watchlist that you probably already knew that). How are things going? I know the first few days can be a bit frustrating, but I hope you're getting used to the process (and all the policies), and decide to stick around. Orville1974 (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Orville1974: thanks again for being patient with me. Not sure if you saw my apology above, but wanted to say it again. I hope I didn't ruin your day too much. Yeah I'm getting use to the bells and whistles in Wikipedia. To be honest, I was worried at first of what I considered bias on Wikipedia, but I am seeing firsthand that the process works and to assume good faith from people. Dy3o2 (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate the apology; you didn't ruin my day. I'm just glad to see you're arguing your point without breaking anything else around here. One thing I've realized is being quick to apologize when you screw up and sticking to WP:AGF will help your credibility a lot, especially with editors you may not see eye to eye with. I find myself apologizing at least once a day, as there are so many rules/exceptions/acronyms/policies/and precedent that I'm still learning it all, too. Of course, you should still be bold (by now, I hope you've picked up on the WP:BRD concept) and argue your point using all the WP:policies/guidance out there, insisting other editors do the same. In the end, we all benefit when Wikipedia presents as neutral a point of view as possible. I hope to see you around, and if you need help with anything, feel free to drop by my talk page. Orville1974 (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC) (p.s.- I'm surprised you got away with removing the Alex Jones' porn incident. I might just have to call you on it . . .)
- @Orville1974: Believe me, I’m not a fan of Jones, but i don’t think it’s relevant to his bio. I tried something I learned from a user in the Hillary Clinton section of my talk page. a user took something out of Hillary Clinton’s page that had been there a while and I asked him to state his case for taking it out but he said he didn’t need to and that the burden of proof is on the person wanting it to say. Dy3o2 (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- WP:BRD except in the case of WP:BLP. Almost everywhere, the expectation is you 1. take an action/be bold (by adding or removing content), then 2. someone reverts your action, then 3. you discuss it on the talk page if you want to put it back/take it out again. Some editors are a little more stubborn and won't go to the talk page until the second or third revert/addition. But if make a point of going to the talk page before reverting or re-adding a third time and hashing it out, you'll find other editors are quick to jump in to discuss the issue while supporting you by removing what you were trying to take out, or re-adding what you were trying to put in, because you're showing good faith. (Everybody gets 3 reverts to the content per 24 hours, so even stubborn editors get stuck accepting the change until the clock runs out while the discussion take place, since a 4th revert on their part gets them an automatic block for at least 24 hours). However in the case of living people, if an editor adds BLP to the removal's edit summary (or a revert of your addition), they are basically claiming that the 3RR rule doesn't apply since the person is living and the information's inclusion may be controversial. In that case, continuing to insert or reinsert the information into the article before consensus is reached can get you blocked even if they exceed the 3RRs and you don't, since the protection of personal information and avoidance of including derogatory information on an individual unless it's well sourced is a key policy on Wikipedia.
As for the Clinton content, I actually chuckled a little when it was removed, since nobody realized it was in there until you pointed it out. By then it was too late for you to try to just put it back in. My gut still tells me we're giving it undue weight, but Clinton's autobiography and the re-emergence of it during her campaign caused enough media attention that it's difficult for us to ignore, so I proposed it's inclusion again in the talk page discussion. Orville1974 (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- WP:BRD except in the case of WP:BLP. Almost everywhere, the expectation is you 1. take an action/be bold (by adding or removing content), then 2. someone reverts your action, then 3. you discuss it on the talk page if you want to put it back/take it out again. Some editors are a little more stubborn and won't go to the talk page until the second or third revert/addition. But if make a point of going to the talk page before reverting or re-adding a third time and hashing it out, you'll find other editors are quick to jump in to discuss the issue while supporting you by removing what you were trying to take out, or re-adding what you were trying to put in, because you're showing good faith. (Everybody gets 3 reverts to the content per 24 hours, so even stubborn editors get stuck accepting the change until the clock runs out while the discussion take place, since a 4th revert on their part gets them an automatic block for at least 24 hours). However in the case of living people, if an editor adds BLP to the removal's edit summary (or a revert of your addition), they are basically claiming that the 3RR rule doesn't apply since the person is living and the information's inclusion may be controversial. In that case, continuing to insert or reinsert the information into the article before consensus is reached can get you blocked even if they exceed the 3RRs and you don't, since the protection of personal information and avoidance of including derogatory information on an individual unless it's well sourced is a key policy on Wikipedia.
Stalking
Stop systemically going through my edits and reverting them. It's WP:HARASSMENT. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)