User talk:Asingleshardofconsciousnes

Welcome!

Hello, Asingleshardofconsciousnes, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Best practices for editors with close associations
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style
The Teahouse, our help forum for new editors

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, visit the Teahouse, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! AntiDionysius (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not receiving or expecting to receive any compensation.

But I know what the candidate stands for - and the other users evidently do not, and are (rather lazily if you ask me) just copying the headline of a single article. If you actually look at the website (primary source) you will see my revision is more accurate. Asingleshardofconsciousnes (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problems.

You seem to be edit warring to include information from the website betterrents4london.com to the article 2024 London mayoral election. First, understand that this is not a reliable source, which doesn't mean it can't be used at all, but it being a primary source, it's use should be used more carefully. The edit warring, as well as the incivil comments [1] isn't helpful. In fact, if it continues, you will be blocked from editing that article at all. Additionally, it is painfully obvious you are the same editor that was recently softblock for the user name that is the same as that domain, so you appear to be editing with a conflict of interest. That alone can get you blocked from editing ANY article, and get the domain name blacklisted. Since Google follows our blacklist (but not the actual links in articles), this would not be a good thing for your own interests. Dennis Brown 2¢ 00:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

based on the 'reliable source' link you provided. A political candidates official website, would be a reliable source for information regarding where that candidate stands on matters raised on said website.

"Evaluation of reliability of a source considers the fact for which the source is cited"

the 'fact' for which the source is being cited is the position of a politician, i.e. what they have publicly written or said is their position. The wikipedia rules (and common sense) would dictate that context is key

"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."

they key part there being: "Is it reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article"

for example an article on the Labour party's 5 missions - this: [2]https://labour.org.uk/missions/

would be a reliable source. would it be a reliable source for the impact or effectiveness of the policies? no.

I edited the original edit because it was misleading due to multiple mistakes.

1. night delivery driver =/= delivery driver

2. free solar panels and heatpump for every home paid for by city =/= solar panel and small heatpump without using city hall funding

etc etc

If you read the article in full, and look at the two edits side by side it's pretty obvious which one is more accurate Asingleshardofconsciousnes (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand. I don't care about the content of that article. What I care about is your behavior, which is against our policies. See WP:Edit warring. You have been reverted by three different people, clearly indicating that your edit is against the consensus of editors that are active on the article. If you revert again or otherwise continue this edit war, you will be blocked from editing that article at all, or blocked from editing any article on Wikipedia. Use the talk page to first build consensus for your desired changes, and if the consensus of other editors disagree with your edits, learn to live with it. Dennis Brown 2¢ 07:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it my behaviour thats the issue, and not the behaviour of the person - who has previous warnings - who is putting up disinformation?

It's a really bad edit. feel free to use one that's not mine, or for anyone to point out the inaccuracies or un-citing ness of it, but it's very odd, that Umbridge is being taken and the presentation of false information is being supported.

what in the edit I made do you have an issue with? Asingleshardofconsciousnes (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't discuss content with you because, as I stated, I don't care about the content, only behavior. As you can see below, I have blocked you from editing the article. You need to learn how to cooperate with others if you want to continue to edit at Wikipedia. We do not tolerate back and forth edit wars. The other editors reverted once, one reverted twice, you keep warring to keep your version. That is the definition of edit warring on your part. It will not be tolerated, no matter how "right" you think you are. See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Dennis Brown 2¢ 09:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So when I undo an edit = bad

but when others do the exact same thing = good.

When I point out the factual inaccuracies = it doesn't matter, only 'my behaviour'

sorry I didn't know the super specific ruleset that runs counter to common sense.

I thought Wikipedia was about facts, and that was what is most important.

as for being neutral - well the edits are obviously political (because why else would you missreprepresent policies and attempt to introduce kooky nonsense?)

my only question to you I guess...is willing enabler or useful stooge?

The fact that not a single person was able to actually highlight a SINGLE issue, is very very telling.

did you even read my edit? Asingleshardofconsciousnes (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing 2024 London mayoral election for an indefinite period of time.

I warned you, in clear language, that you would be blocked, but you continued to edit war, reverting the last edit just after that warning. So now you are blocked from editing that article at all, until you can convince another admin that you will not continue to edit against consensus. See WP:GAB for information on how to get unblocked. Until then, you can edit the talk page of that article, but not the main article. You can edit any other article, but if you edit war in other places, you will be blocked from editing ANY pages at Wikipedia. Dennis Brown 2¢ 09:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yea well I made my reasons clear on the talk -, but i guess that counts for naff all, just like facts Asingleshardofconsciousnes (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Unjust, caused by ego's and politics Asingleshardofconsciousnes (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for violating WP:EW but don't address this in your request. Yamla (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2024 (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.

I edited the post relating to a minor political candidate of little significance, this was immediately edited and undone by User Bondegezou without any reasoning given.

When I pointed out the reason for my edit - his version was inaccurate, so to make article more acurate. He reverted it without comment.

I tried to make the case to him and some admin who showed up Dennis Brown, and pointed out why the bondegezou version was incorrect, and asked what if any problems they had with the version I made.

Neither party was able to do so, and then Dennis Brown went on an ego trip.

I'm a new user to Wikipedia - is every edit going to expose me to such a degree of toxicity?

there is an obvious political bias to the edits being made against the version I posted. The version I posted doesn't make the candidate look like a kook who is promising the moon on a stick.

this is the version I wrote: "Serge Crowbolder, a Netherlands-born night delivery man, is running as an independent. He said he would work with banks and government to reduce rents, provided a big enough mandate is created by the electorate. In order to create this mandate and run as a single issue candidate for better rents, he promises to establish a direct democracy, e-democracy platform to give Londoners power over City Hall if elected. He claims this will give people greater control over issues such as empty homes, and TfL. He also plans to explore providing solar panels and heat pumps to every home, without using City Hall finances. "

this is the version bondegezou (who i think has links to reform UK) wrote: Serge Crowbolder, a Netherlands-born delivery man, is intending to run as an independent. He said he would seek powers to reduce rents, establish an e-democracy platform, provide solar panels and heat pumps to every home, and explore building a dam between Essex and Kent.

except now he has added the wording "is intending to run"

This guy is making politically motivated posts all over this article and website.

If you care remotely about democracy you will do something about this. Asingleshardofconsciousnes (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just an observing user rather than an admin, but as a piece of advice: you were blocked for violating the Edit Warring policy; that is, for making repeated restorations of your preferred version of the page despite the disagreements of other users. If you want to get an admin to lift your page block, you will probably need to address that procedural issue (i.e. by making clear you understand rules around consensus, discussion and edit warring, and committing to follow them in future) rather than merely continuing to argue you were right on the content issue.

Also would advise checking out WP:AGF. --AntiDionysius (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you are done playing the victim, you might try actually reading the links I provided. Edit warring is not tolerated, no matter how right you think you are. You were given a very detailed last warning, explaining this, and explaining that I have no interest in the content (I'm not a Brit, for starters). I am only interested in the behavior that is disrupting the editing of others. You were told what the outcome would be if you reverted your edit back in. And you did it anyway. It was all spelled out to you clearly, concisely, and the net result was exactly what you were told it would be, but somehow you didn't believe me, or thought yourself above the linked policy I provided. You were only blocked from one article. Is that the only article you care about? Dennis Brown 2¢ 11:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "playing the victim"

but it seems clear that what is most important to you, is that you get someone to jump through your hoops.

FYI I did take it to a talk page (just the wrong one because i'm a n00b at this site)

If you ask me, you're no longer 'able to see the woods from the trees' - what's the point of Wikipedia again?

and as an American maybe you don't have that saying, so let me reassure you it's not an insult nor is it meant to be an insult.

Maybe it's an opportunity to reflect, take a step back.

I'm not going to grovel and wax lyrical about how I now see the error of my ways.

I didn't know the counter intuitive rules and what all the different talk pages were about.

My actions came from a good place, and a desire to have the highest degree of accuracy present on the page, nothing more.

The actions of a veteran Wikipedia poster, who has political affiliations (Reform UK), and has now caused misinformation to be published (without having to give reason or talk etc), I'm not so sure his actions came from a good place.

Maybe the whole "I don't care about the content" is a way to insulate yourself as an admin - but regardless, context is always king - in everything, in this case that context was the content and difference between the two edits,

at other times it will be something else, but the context will always be king.

Do with that information what you will

"On a long enough timescale, every population gets the government it deserves" - me 2024 Asingleshardofconsciousnes (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of these long, wandering diatribes (that I'm honestly not reading) which focus on my terrible shortcomings (in your eyes), you should focus on why you were blocked, and address that with concise, pithy and relevant statements. Any admin can unblock you, with my blessing, if they feel you "get it", but your actions are slowly adding up to reasons why that same future admin will instead consider fully blocking you from any editing, including on this talk page. Again, ignore the good advice you've been given, at your own peril.

And the whole "I don't care about the content" is simple: If I had strong opinions on the content, then I would be barred from using administrative tools. Admin are not allowed to use those tools (like blocking) in regards to subject matter they have strong opinions on, or in regards to articles they have substantially participated in. That would be a conflict of interest. This insures that the actions are objective, and not driven by a preference for a particular edit. This is how the entire website is run. You weren't blocked because I agreed or disagreed with your edits. You were blocked because you wouldn't stop reverting other editors, even after being clearly warned what would happen. Period. Your behavior is the problem.

Now, I will wash my hands of this. You are welcome to put up another unblock template and request to be unblocked, but if your tone continues like this, the reviewing admin will very likely block you further. I can't review, don't worry, only another admin can, like Yamla did. You care about one political candidate, admin generally care about the encyclopedia as a whole. Until you grasp this concept and modify your approach to this issue, you are wasting your time with these TLDR replies. Dennis Brown 2¢ 12:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't focus on your shortcomings -

read or do not - it is safe to do so Asingleshardofconsciousnes (talk) 12:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. Just as a note, I do not have political affiliations to Reform UK. Bondegezou (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]