User talk:AcademicHistorian

Welcome

Hello, AcademicHistorian, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

That editor had previously removed citation needed tags as well as the term medic. I guess they were not part of that reversion. Regardless, the term army medic is redundant. Civilians are known as paramedics. So, simply "medic" is fine.

More importantly, Khadr's was convicted, not just charged. This conviction has not been repealed. This conviction is also what Khadr's is most known for. Please discuss on talk page. AcademicHistorian (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Omar Khadr has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Omar Khadr was changed by AcademicHistorian (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.913091 on 2017-07-18T12:04:07+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Omar Khadr. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Meters (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit and summary seemed to be intentionally misleading. You removed citations and replaced them with citation needed tags, said "Don't remove citation needed tags" in your summary and and then suggested on the talk page that unsourced material should be removed. Your summary "Don't remove the fact that Speer was a medic" was similarly misleading. No-one removed the fact that he was a medic. You removed "army" from "army medic". Meters (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Trystan had in a previous edit removed the citation needed tags. I thought he/she did the same in this edit as well. Also, there's no point in stating "army medic". Civilians are known as "paramedics". All medics are military by definition, so this is redundant. Most importantly, Trystan is arguing that pleading guilty and a conviction to a crime are synonyms. This is not true. Someone might plead guilty to a crime, but the case could be dismissed, or the charges dropped, etc. The conviction is strangely missing from the lede. This should be in the first sentence. It makes no sense whatsoever to mention the detainment of Khadr without FIRST mentioning the conviction. I'm trying to fix this article FROM disruptive editing, which seem to stem from a POV political beliefs. For example, why is there a photo of a 14 year old, when the man is over 30? AcademicHistorian (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Omar Khadr. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. Meters (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Politics...

I hate politics on WP, because it always ends poorly. It's obvious that there is POV in the Khadr article (I'm not accusing anyone now, but I'm saying the article was written very pro-Khadr and it's being preserved, purposefully or not). But, my advice is, don't argue with people re these sort of issues. Because the minority position is probably not going to win (from experience). I will do my best to help you keep the article NPOV, but if you edit war you will probably get blocked (noting the warnings; I got a 1 day ban for edit warring a while ago..). I hope this doesn't sound like I am trying to tell you what to do, but I would hate to see you get blocked and have only one side of the Khadr story get shown in the article. Does that make sense? I personally have to be careful with political issues on WP, so maybe I'm projecting. The bottom line is, we have to keep as NPOV as possible, and make objectively good edits. If people revert those, we can discuss that. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 13:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AcademicHistorian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As far as I can tell, the editor I am accused of being has never edited any of the same articles as I have. I really don't think this is fair. Maybe I coincidentally have the same ISP as this editor, but so do millions of people. This makes no sense. It also makes me wonder how many innocent editors have been thrown under the bus for nothing. I'm so done with Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

As per Anthony Bradbury's comment below. Yamla (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

A checkuser block does not depend only on ISP identification. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]