User talk:AnonQuixote/Archive 1

Archive 1

Request for admin assistance

{{Admin help}} Hello, I accidentally edited Deprivation while logged out. I went back and reverted the edit, then repeated the change under my named account. Is it possible to remove the IP edit from the page history for privacy reasons? Thanks, AnonQuixote (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I have suppressed the edit. PhilKnight (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi AnonQuixote! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How to close an RfD item?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Deleting others' talk page comments at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tartan357: I think you are missing some context. I had reverted another user's edit which deleted a section I had created. This revert also re-introduced some unrelated comments which that user had deleted, pertaining to a discussion which no longer existed, so I deleted those comments. However, it turned out that the section I restored was also no longer relevant as the issue had already been addressed, so I ended up deleting it again. The net result of all these edits was no change. AnonQuixote (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not missing any context. You cannot delete others' talk page comments except in very exceptional circumstances. The issue already being addressed is absolutely not one of those. See WP:TALKO. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tartan357: I'm very confused now. I deleted talk page comments that had previously been deleted by another user, which I inadvertently un-deleted via a revert. What, in your opinion, was the correct thing to do? AnonQuixote (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

AnonQuixote, you were correct to un-delete them, and should not have deleted them again simply because you deemed them no longer necessary. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I see, that was my mistake. I'll let some other editor handle the cleanup in that case. AnonQuixote (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

AnonQuixote, great, thanks. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

American politics discretionary sanctions alert

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.

― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Username

I just wanted to say that I really like your username Happy editing! GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:Second impeachment of Donald Trump. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Please do not accuse me of edit warring. I did not, and I do not. You changed the infobox information without first gaining consensus on talk, and I left a friendly note in my edit summary, "How about waiting until others weigh in on talk for consensus before making this change?" Changing infobox information on the Second impeachment of Donald Trump without first seeking consensus could be considered a controversial change, which is why I undid your edit. We are all volunteers here, and it sometimes takes time for others to add their comments to article talk pages. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Netherzone: Hi, my intent was not to accuse anyone of edit warring but to ask editors not to do so and to use the talk page to discuss instead. Since the point of contention was an unsourced claim in a BLP article, my belief is that the potentially libelous information must be removed first, then discussed to determine if a source can be found to justify its reinstatement. Apologies if my comment came across as hostile. AnonQuixote (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

You may wish to think about the fact that you were the person who reverted the wikilink three times within an hour or so. That link has been stable in the article for some time before you decided to change it without first gaining consensus. Please consider reading about the WP:CONSENSUS process. You can always add a "citation needed" maintenance template instead of serial reverts. Be well. Netherzone (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy that unsourced, potentially libelous statements must be removed immediately, even if it means exceeding three reverts: WP:3RRBLP. This reflects the policy that that Wikipedia must rely on reliable sources, especially in biographies of living persons where there may be additional legal concerns. If you want to advocate for adding back the claim, with a reliable source, feel free to discuss on the article talk page. AnonQuixote (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Accusation of edit warring

Your recent editing history at Second impeachment of Donald Trump 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. Vikram Vincent 06:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vincentvikram: Wikipedia has a clear policy that unsourced material must be removed from biographies of living persons. If you want to suggest getting rid of Wikipedia's sourcing, BLP, or neutrality policies my talk page is not the right place to do so. AnonQuixote (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

AnonQuixote that is a fast moving page and I dont have the time to go back and check but I did see you revert at least two things multiple times. However, I find your question to me rather a straw man argument. I would suggest looking up logical fallacies. Best! Vikram Vincent 06:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

If you don't even know what's going on why are you even harassing me? AnonQuixote (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

LOL for the "harassment" phrase. I am aware of what is going on and can see how fast the edits are moving. I just have a day and night job which is outside Wikipedia and don't have the time right now to provide diff's. However, if you prefer, I can look it up when I can free myself. Have a great day! Vikram Vincent 06:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

AnonQuixote, also want to note that any controversial page that deals with American Politics after 1932 is subject to 1RR, not 3RR, and discretionary sanctions are available to any admin who feels they are merited. So, edit warring is a really bad idea to do on those pages. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 07:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

My belief is that removing unsourced, potentially libelous material is a justified exception to revert limits per WP:3RRBLP. AnonQuixote (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

AnonQuixote, that is an exemption, but there is clearly no libel nor unsourced content here. Agree with Gwennie-nyan, you should be mindful of DS. I gave you the alert earlier, so you now meet the awareness criteria necessary for sanctions to be imposed. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 07:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the veiled threats, but the claim that Trump was charged with sedition is unsourced. AnonQuixote (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Deleting others' talk page comments at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

I was mistaken. Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors is not a talk page, so it is a rare instance where removing sections after discussion has concluded is acceptable. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 07:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tartan357: Thanks for the update. Cheers, AnonQuixote (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is AnonQuixote. Thank you. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)