Zemstone

June 2022

Hello, I'm Adakiko. An edit you recently made to Tom O'Halleran seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. 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. Adakiko (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Please stop adding a write in candidate to Arizona’s 2nd district on the 2022 House elections page. Write in candidates are not listed there, and your edits will continue to be reverted. Hotpotato1234567890 (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

why are write in not allowed? they are running for office as well. I want to report this Zemstone (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Only candidates that will have their names printed on ballots appear on these lists. Additionally, you keep removing candidates or changing information regarding other candidates in the district. Hotpotato1234567890 (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

says some person named hotpotato, you must work for a candidate. all people running should be listed and stop removing names or I will report you! Zemstone (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

If you’re going to constantly add one write-in candidate, why not write all of them? There are more in the state of Arizona.

Also I wish I worked for a candidate, that’s a dream job Hotpotato1234567890 (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

well you are welcome to! go after your dreams! But please leave my candidate alone. He has a right to be there. I wont try to edit anymore if you just leave my guy there. its legal and there is no bylaws or rules regarding write in vs. ballet furthermore in Arizona you must file and follow laws as any other candidate and the laws do not differ or divide candidates. A candidate is a candidate. I provided sources. have a good day! Zemstone (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The proper way to contest consensus edits is through the talk page. I started a post to discuss why write in candidates aren’t included, so before editing again please use the talk page. This is standard on Wikipedia to prevent edit wars Hotpotato1234567890 (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to display the correct legal candidates under the laws of Aizona & the United States. nothing to talk about. stop removing my edit. I already reported you. Zemstone (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

You really should participate in the talk page discussion. This is by far the preferred method of resolving editing disagreements. Collaboration over contention. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Zemstone you did? I don't see any report. To WP:ANI? Doug Weller talk 16:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at 2022 United States House of Representatives elections 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice

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-1992 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Doug Weller talk 16:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

and you are who? you are censoring the page and only allowing people you want on it! I did report you and will keep doing so. I will also have this candidate mention this at the next fundraiser. good luck. Zemstone (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I haven’t edited anything to do with that election. Where have you reported it? Doug Weller talk 18:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

And you couldn’t have reported me, you didn’t know about me. Doug Weller talk 18:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)