Speaktruthplz
Your recent editing history at November 2023 Ohio Issue 1 shows that you are currently 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. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
September 2023 edit
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Talk:November 2023 Ohio Issue 1—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- Okie dokie Speaktruthplz (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Your edits at November 2023 Ohio Issue 1 edit
You've made a number of edits citing policy or guideline and then explaining your rationale. I spot checked one of those edits where you stated WP:NOR, No sources cited backing up claims removed
. The source is The New York Times, a comprehensive piece written by Emily Bazelon which is available online this page. I found the claimed statements in that source quite easily. Given that it was quite easy, I believe the rest of your edits are likewise questionable or dubious, and believe you should propose edits on the talk page until you're more capable of reviewing sources and understanding their meaning. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- It is incredibly academically dishonest and lazy for you to change every single edit because you disagree with me about the topic. I took the time to cite each reason, if you disagree with me like in this case then make the revision for that specific instance and cite the reason. Don't play dictator and prevent anyone from making changes to your swayed article that's turned into a slander piece for Lizzie Marbach. Stop letting your political opinion create crappy, irrelevant, unproductive articles. Speaktruthplz (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
It is incredibly academically dishonest and lazy for you to change every single edit because you disagree with me about the topic.
If you read what I wrote, you'll know that's not why you were reverted. I leave it to you to read what I wrote again. I'm not addressing the rest of what you wrote because it's just incivility and bad faith. The process we generally use here is bold, revert discuss: you can make changes to article ("be bold"), but if you're reverted (your changes are undone), your best way forward is to discuss those changes on the talk page and get consensus. You're more than welcome to get consensus on the talk page for your changes, but edit warring as you were warned above is not the way to make the changes you want. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)- You're not an idiot, you are clearly using mob rule to make sure that article remains left leaning. I made one edit mistake and so your claiming it should all be thrown out. You're too lazy too look into the other changes, like removing claims that have nothing to do with the topic to try and sway viewers. It's authors like you that make Wikipedia have a horrible name because you only allow your side with you bias. It's disgusting. Speaktruthplz (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- You're engaging in personal attacks now. One of the requirements for editing here is maintaining civility. It has nothing to do with "being lazy", but it is very troubling when you make a claim in an edit summary and the claim was refuted in just a few minutes. Given the volume of edits you made in a short period, and the fact that you are making more claims there, it seems likely those would also be incorrect. This is just simple logic. If you believe the one edit was just a mistake, it should be simple to get consensus for your changes on the talk page and re-implement them. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm attacking your behavior of silencing those you disagree with. That's not WHAT Wikipedia is supposed to be about. But clearly majority rules, it has nothing to do with keeping articles objective, only requiring majority rule. I hope you can one day understand your bias and not play dictator to the opposition. Speaktruthplz (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well, no good deed goes unpunished I suppose. I was taking the time to explain why I reverted your edits and provided an example for you to understand. Instead of taking my advice and acting on it, you're lashing out at me and making accusations about my character. I'm done with you here. If you attempt to make further edits with dishonest edit summaries, I'll revert them. If you violate WP:3RR, I will report that and you will be blocked. If you want to stay here and contribute, you can take my advice about getting consensus and doing better at researching sources for statements you disagree with before removing or altering them. Your behavior will dictate how long you can stay here. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm attacking your behavior of silencing those you disagree with. That's not WHAT Wikipedia is supposed to be about. But clearly majority rules, it has nothing to do with keeping articles objective, only requiring majority rule. I hope you can one day understand your bias and not play dictator to the opposition. Speaktruthplz (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- You're engaging in personal attacks now. One of the requirements for editing here is maintaining civility. It has nothing to do with "being lazy", but it is very troubling when you make a claim in an edit summary and the claim was refuted in just a few minutes. Given the volume of edits you made in a short period, and the fact that you are making more claims there, it seems likely those would also be incorrect. This is just simple logic. If you believe the one edit was just a mistake, it should be simple to get consensus for your changes on the talk page and re-implement them. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- You're not an idiot, you are clearly using mob rule to make sure that article remains left leaning. I made one edit mistake and so your claiming it should all be thrown out. You're too lazy too look into the other changes, like removing claims that have nothing to do with the topic to try and sway viewers. It's authors like you that make Wikipedia have a horrible name because you only allow your side with you bias. It's disgusting. Speaktruthplz (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics edit
You have recently edited a page related to abortion, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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 special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
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.
Doug Weller talk 17:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
These alerts apply to all pages edit
Including this one. See WP:NPA. Any more such attacks and you should expect to be blocked or or topic banned. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)