Welcome 3Kingdoms!
I'm Vincentvikram, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}}
here on your talk page and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}}
on your userpage.
Please remember to:
- Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes
~~~~
at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp. - Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
Sincerely, Vikram Vincent 11:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
3Kingdoms, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hi 3Kingdoms! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC) |
Unblock Request
3Kingdoms (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Clearly people disagree with how I went about this. I found that no compelling reason why my edit was reverted and no one to mind gave a good response, furthrmore I found the actions of one User to be especially bad. Ultimately I accept that my constant back and forth was not the most productive. I will not edit Schenck's page anymore and will try to refraim from edit warring again if unblocked. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Accept reason:
This block was correct and was necessary to protect the project. However, the conditions applied by the blocking admin were that "Though the block is indefinite, other admins might consider an unblock if they become convinced that the problem will not recur."
After questioning the editor, I have come to the conclusion that the editor's approach has changed to the point that the problem will not recur: (a) the Schenck page appears to be the source of the problem and the editor has agreed not to edit it further, (b) the editor has indicated they understand the issue that was created and has demonstrated their knowledge, to the degree I can reasonably ask them to demonstrate, of the edit-warring policy, (c) the editor has committed to not edit-warring in the future. In light of this, the block will be changed to a partial block of the Schenck article for a period of time. Additional instances of edit-warring (on any page) in the near future may require extraordinary measures to arrest such as reapplication of an indef. I think this unblock is consistent with the guidance provided in the block by the blocking admin.
The genesis of the current situation appears to have been a tête-à-tête between the editor and another editor. As a point of general advice, I recommend the editor voluntarily avoid interaction with the other editor for some reasonable period of time or, at least, treat their relationship as a clean slate and let bygones be bygones. If they feel they are being hounded in the future (and I have no idea if they were or were not) they should pursue conventional means of resolution such as the 3RR noticeboard or WP:ANI.
Finally, I don't consider the editor's commitment not to edit the Schenck article as precluding them from constructively participating in that article's Talk page, including registering edit requests, however, the editor could demonstrate their level-headedness by voluntarily avoiding the Talk page for a liberal period of time. Chetsford (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
:3Kingdoms ... not to split hairs here, however, would you be willing to absolutely refrain from edit warring in the future if unblocked, as opposed to just trying to refrain? I think if you could clarify that point it would be helpful in lifting the block. Chetsford (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I would refraim entirely.3Kingdoms (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- 3Kingdoms - two other quick questions. First, can you verify your familiarity with the edit warring policy by linking to the applicable page in reply to this message? Second, you said you wouldn't edit the Schenck article anymore if unblocked; would you, therefore, accept a partial block of just that page? Chetsford (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Chetsford- Yes here is the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring I understand the three reverts rule applies in general. I thought it only applied if you were warned before. I also would accept a partial block of just that page, although I hope this can eventually be removed after showing that I will not repeat past mistakes. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- 3Kingdoms - two other quick questions. First, can you verify your familiarity with the edit warring policy by linking to the applicable page in reply to this message? Second, you said you wouldn't edit the Schenck article anymore if unblocked; would you, therefore, accept a partial block of just that page? Chetsford (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I would refraim entirely.3Kingdoms (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Delay in Responding
Apologies. I'm dealing with some family issues including Hospice at the moment, and I'll be a bit delayed in responding to you on the Antifa talk page; didn't mean to just disappear. I'll do so when I'm able. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hey No problem, terribly sorry to hear that and I hope for the best for your family in this difficult time. That is far more important than posting on here and don't concern yourself with this. Will keep you and you family in my prays. Hope you are doing well despite these circumstances. Have a good day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia's principle of Original research
User:3Kingdoms, regarding this addition of material about Rice (1969) to the article, and your response at Talk:Anti-gender movement#Origin theories in this edit (permalink) :
I thought that Rice's book could also be considered a point of origin
There's a really important point about editing here at Wikipedia that's crucial that you get on board with, and that's Wikipedia's principle of No original research. In the context of the Anti-gender movement article, it means that it doesn't matter what you think about Rice's book; it matters what Rice says, or what other reliable sources say about his theories. What I'm trying to say, is, it doesn't matter whether *you* (or any editor) thinks that Rice's book could be considered a theory about origins or not; what's important is, did *Rice* declare that he had a theory about the origins of Gender ideology? If yes, then you can summarize his words and cite him. Given that he wrote in 1969 and the term hadn't been invented yet, it's pretty impossible that he would've been saying that. That said, it's not impossible that some academic writing in the late 90s or 2000 might've looked back to Rice's book and said, "Rice foresaw the origin of the coming gender ideology when he said this on page 237 of his book", and then you can add *that* to the article, citing Mr 2000 Academic. But what you did by adding that material is you engaged in Original research, which is prohibited at Wikipedia. It's very important that you understand it and comply with it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah I thought it could be considered that, well I am sorry for that. However, I will say that to me at least Pope Benedict did not really declare a theory either in the 1980s. Also regarding this quote "In 1997, American anti-abortion journalist Dale O’Leary wrote a book titled The Gender Agenda", This along with the the Vatican statement in the 1990s related to what Rice had said before. That's just my view, but I have no plans on fighting this. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Don't worry, you're still new, you don't have to be sorry, we've all been there. Just keep it in mind, going forward. If what you say is true about Ratzinger, then possibly that shouldn't be in there, either. But, if some academic or reliable source reported later on what Ratzinger said back then, and characterized it as "Gender ideology", or somehow connected them, then you can include it, citing the academic. But if you made the connection yourself because it seemed obvious and logical, then you should remove it, pending the discovery of a published, reliable source that you can cite. Does this make sense? Mathglot (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah I thought it could be considered that, well I am sorry for that. However, I will say that to me at least Pope Benedict did not really declare a theory either in the 1980s. Also regarding this quote "In 1997, American anti-abortion journalist Dale O’Leary wrote a book titled The Gender Agenda", This along with the the Vatican statement in the 1990s related to what Rice had said before. That's just my view, but I have no plans on fighting this. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely, please see my rationale here. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 21:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC).
- Got it. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- If I were to appeal the block, is there anything you would recommend that I say or do to have a chance of it being overturned to show I will change? 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure, sorry. To be frank, the trouble is that you don't have that much credibility at this time. I definitely wouldn't appeal any time soon, if I were you. One possibility might be to edit the Wikimedia Foundation's sister projects for six months (you're only blocked on the English Wikipedia) and then appeal, showing that you have edited the other projects without edit warring or other disruption. Bishonen | tålk 22:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC).
- If I were to appeal the block, is there anything you would recommend that I say or do to have a chance of it being overturned to show I will change? 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Remember, indefinite does not always mean infinite. I really hope you take some time off and come back with a fresh mindset. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank for the Kitten and the Kind response, I am taking Bio's advice and gonna focus on wikiquote and other sister projects to show change on my part and hope for a repeal later on. Have a great day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Ideological colonization
Hello, 3Kingdoms. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ideological colonization".
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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Request for unblock 4/22
3Kingdoms (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was clearly being hot-headed and to revert-happy before. As per recommendation I spent the last 7 months, relaxing, drinking tea, calming down, and editing on other wikis [1] where I had no issues. I understand that 3rr is not a privilege, but something to be used rarely. I understand that edit-warring is mulitple different things beyond violating the 3rr "gaming the system by waiting 24 hours before your fourth revert, or subtly changing your version each time so it is not a perfect revert, or otherwise edit warring over the article is seen to be editing in bad faith". I would happily accept a 6 month no revert or only 1rr, for a complete blank slate to start again. Thanks3Kingdoms (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Accept reason:
You are unblocked under the following conditions: the user is bound by a 0RR editing restriction for 3 months (28th July 2022), and a further 3 month 1RR editing restriction (28th October 2022), that will only end after both the (additional) 3 months and 100 positive edits. For the sake of clarity, these restrictions do not replace any previous editing AE restrictions or any community TBANs. These restrictions are noted at wp:ER/UC. But beyond these formal editing restrictions, I'm just going to ask you to think when you're editing - stop and consider if something might be likely to cause problems. This talk page has various editors who appear willing and able to provide a 2nd opinion on something if asked - utilise them. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging blocking admin @Bishonen: reviewing this editor's history indicates that they definitely can be a positive editor, but that they've got to stop and think. While it's not a vast list of edits on Wikiquote, it's not a scattered handful. I'm still thinking myself, but thought I'd be time-efficient and ask for your thoughts now :) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe a zero revert restriction for a while, as 3Kingdom suggests, would be a good idea. (I'd say 3 months rather than 6, which is a Wikipedia eternity.) But I'll be altogether happy to leave it to you, Nosebagbear. Bishonen | tålk 14:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC).
- Hi 3Kingdoms, as I noted above, I certainly believe you can be a good editor, so it's just finding the restrictions that most encourage that. I'm inclined to go with the following - you let me know if you'd be willing to agree to them to be unblocked:
- A zero revert restriction that lasts for 3 months
- After that, a 1-revert-restriction that lasts for an additional 3 months, so long as you make at least 100 edits within the (in total) six months. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- I accept the terms completely. However, to makes things clear, when I say blank slate I also mean things like the block on editing pages on the Arab-Iseral conflict. I wanted to make sure this point was clear so as not to cause any confusion or sense that I am breaking the agreement. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Your topic ban in ARBPIA was set by Arbitration Enforcement here, with an appeal declined here, and can only be appealed to the imposing admin (Newslinger courtesy ping if you want to address that here), or again to WP:AE or to the arbitration committee. No one admin, besides the one who imposed the ban, can vacate it in favor of a revert restriction here. nableezy - 05:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Got it. If Newslinger would be willing to do so. It would be appreciated. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Your topic ban in ARBPIA was set by Arbitration Enforcement here, with an appeal declined here, and can only be appealed to the imposing admin (Newslinger courtesy ping if you want to address that here), or again to WP:AE or to the arbitration committee. No one admin, besides the one who imposed the ban, can vacate it in favor of a revert restriction here. nableezy - 05:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi 3Kingdoms, as I noted above, I certainly believe you can be a good editor, so it's just finding the restrictions that most encourage that. I'm inclined to go with the following - you let me know if you'd be willing to agree to them to be unblocked:
- Maybe a zero revert restriction for a while, as 3Kingdom suggests, would be a good idea. (I'd say 3 months rather than 6, which is a Wikipedia eternity.) But I'll be altogether happy to leave it to you, Nosebagbear. Bishonen | tålk 14:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC).
- Pinging blocking admin @Bishonen: reviewing this editor's history indicates that they definitely can be a positive editor, but that they've got to stop and think. While it's not a vast list of edits on Wikiquote, it's not a scattered handful. I'm still thinking myself, but thought I'd be time-efficient and ask for your thoughts now :) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
May 2022
Hello, I'm Beccaynr. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Jessica Cisneros, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Beccaynr (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hey I changed it because to my understanding wiki prefers us to avoid the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" so I decided to change it for Cisneros. The wording I used is pretty clunky, but I thought it said it got across the point without bias. I get why it was reverted though. No issue for me. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi 3Kingdoms, thank you very much for your reply - I ended up adding 'abortion rights', which also seems more neutral than what I had reverted back to, and it was also used in a recent news source to describe the group. I appreciate your point about the terminology, and had not fully considered it before and how it applies here. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jim Jordan (American politician), 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. ZimZalaBim talk 12:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry I forgot to add my reason here it is "Per the decision by other editors these sections are to be removed and should not be included." 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- What "decision by other editors" are you referring to, exactly? --ZimZalaBim talk 16:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. 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 Dan Newhouse, you may be blocked from editing. ZimZalaBim talk 16:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- I provided evidence for most of the recent removal , but I forgot to repost on some. Sorry about that. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Removal of content
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. GrammarDamner how are things? 17:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hello. I do not consider my edits to be disruptive. I am sorry for not explaining on the page of each member, because I felt it would feel redundant. My decision to remove is that the quotes used are not directly related to the induvial congressmen, and are undue weight. Especially since no effort was made to not seat the members. Is their a place you would like to discuss with other members to decide on keeping? 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps each article's talk page would be the best place. The quotes do not have to specifically mention each member in order to be pertinent to them. I personally feel that they are not undue weight. I realize that on so many other politicians' articles, Wikipedia editors often remove negative content and call it undue weight, even when it's not. It's unfortunate, because it's relevant information that Wikipedia readers find useful. If you decide to start a discussion at any of the talk pages, I will try to keep an eye on them and offer input. Thank you. GrammarDamner how are things? 20:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- My issue with doing it on each page would be that it would spread across way too many pages and would cause unneeded confusion. Is there a way to do it in one place for the discussion of all pages. Maybe dispute resolution? If not how about one page, have discussion there and apply outcome to the rest? I definitely agree with people using undue weight to remove negative traits, but also there are times when it seems people pile on negatives. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- And as I said at Jacona's talk page, sorry that this is discussion is getting scattered on more than one talk page. Perhaps we could expand on the information to include that no effort was actually made to unseat the members? You do have a good point. GrammarDamner how are things? 20:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Personally I feel that Pelsoi, and especially Bill Pascrell's quotes should be limited to their pages along with pages relating to TX v. PA, the 2020 election, etc. However, maybe removing the quotes and just giving a brief summary of the call to unseat plus that ultimately no steps were taken could work. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, I think that is a good way to summarize the information. I will let you go ahead and make those changes since you're more familiar with these cases. Thank you. GrammarDamner how are things? 20:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Personally I feel that Pelsoi, and especially Bill Pascrell's quotes should be limited to their pages along with pages relating to TX v. PA, the 2020 election, etc. However, maybe removing the quotes and just giving a brief summary of the call to unseat plus that ultimately no steps were taken could work. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- And as I said at Jacona's talk page, sorry that this is discussion is getting scattered on more than one talk page. Perhaps we could expand on the information to include that no effort was actually made to unseat the members? You do have a good point. GrammarDamner how are things? 20:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- My issue with doing it on each page would be that it would spread across way too many pages and would cause unneeded confusion. Is there a way to do it in one place for the discussion of all pages. Maybe dispute resolution? If not how about one page, have discussion there and apply outcome to the rest? I definitely agree with people using undue weight to remove negative traits, but also there are times when it seems people pile on negatives. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps each article's talk page would be the best place. The quotes do not have to specifically mention each member in order to be pertinent to them. I personally feel that they are not undue weight. I realize that on so many other politicians' articles, Wikipedia editors often remove negative content and call it undue weight, even when it's not. It's unfortunate, because it's relevant information that Wikipedia readers find useful. If you decide to start a discussion at any of the talk pages, I will try to keep an eye on them and offer input. Thank you. GrammarDamner how are things? 20:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Greg Murphy (politician)
Hello, I saw your edit to Greg Murphy (politician) and was wondering where the consensus was for that? I'm in agreement 100%, as that paragraph has been copy/pasted across congressional BLPs, where the sources either mention the subject once (in list format with no indication on the relevance to the particular subject) or not at all. Just hoping to point to something in the future, should this come up. Thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- I initially removed the repeated text across numerous different congressmen. Some of these were reverted, however they were than reverted back to my change by other editors. Here are three different pages where three different editors used the same reason I had for the removal Mike Bost, Jeff Fortenberry, Cathy McMorris Rodgers. Hope this clears things up. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I've reverted you at Anti-fascism for what appears to be adding material not in the sources
If I'm wrong, I apologise. If I'm right, those are not just unsourced but in at least one case pov. Doug Weller talk 09:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- From the CSI source "In analyzing fatalities from terrorist attacks, religious terrorism has killed the largest number of individuals—3,086 people—primarily due to the attacks on September 11, 2001, which caused 2,977 deaths. In comparison, right-wing terrorist attacks caused 335 fatalities, left-wing attacks caused 22 deaths, and ethno-nationalist terrorists caused 5 deaths." From the Guardian article "Editor’s note: Since this piece was published in July 2020, the data has changed: domestic terrorism experts now link one homicide in the US to a self-described anti-fascist, the first such killing in 25 years." Here are the two sources. 3Kingdoms (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Guardian article isn't specific enough, and I think I know what they are talking about and it's disputed. I find it very odd that the CSI source doesn't add terrorist to left-wing attacks, but ok. I think it's Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl. But that is about a supporter, not Antifa itself. Note that the Department of Homeland Security reported in October 2020 that white supremacists posed the top domestic terrorism threat, which FBI director Christopher Wray confirmed in March 2021. No mention of Antifa. And Reinoehl was not associated with Rose City Antifa or the Portland-based anti-fascist organization Popular Mobilization. Anyone can say they are an Antifa supporter, should Antifa be blamed for every action of every person who says they support it? Doug Weller talk 14:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I also do not no why the study says attack instead of terrorism. Regarding the other point the Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl that you linked to directly says the motive was anti-fascism as the movement. The page I added this to was on anti-fascism not antifa. Furthermore numerous sources on the page mention antifa/ anti-fascism as the motive, I do not see that being disputed. I do not understand brining up the DOHS report here since I kept it on the page and do not dispute its conclusion or the danger of far right attacks. If anything my addition reinforces the claim since it shows even if one includes all far left attacks (not just anti-fascism) it is still far smaller than far-right attacks. Finally the point about antifa is confusing. It is repeatedly mentioned that Antifa is not a group but a catch all phrase to describe a variety of groups and individuals motivated by the ideology of anti-fascism since there is no formal membership Reinoehl's claiming to support it seems to have been enough for sources to claim it to be antifa related. Maybe they are wrong, but that is what the sources say. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Guardian article isn't specific enough, and I think I know what they are talking about and it's disputed. I find it very odd that the CSI source doesn't add terrorist to left-wing attacks, but ok. I think it's Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl. But that is about a supporter, not Antifa itself. Note that the Department of Homeland Security reported in October 2020 that white supremacists posed the top domestic terrorism threat, which FBI director Christopher Wray confirmed in March 2021. No mention of Antifa. And Reinoehl was not associated with Rose City Antifa or the Portland-based anti-fascist organization Popular Mobilization. Anyone can say they are an Antifa supporter, should Antifa be blamed for every action of every person who says they support it? Doug Weller talk 14:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)