User talk:Copernicus43728

April 2022

Hello, I'm FormalDude. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Jason Miller (communications strategist) seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ––FormalDude talk 01:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Copernicus43728! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Jason Miller (communications strategist) several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Jason Miller (communications strategist), please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. ––FormalDude talk 16:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FormalDude, that wasn't my intention. "Edit wars" sound very counterproductive. I'll follow up shortly. Copernicus43728 (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed in great detail on FormalDude’s wall, the reversals by him restore numerous violations of BLP rules and do so in a manner that involves intimate, hurtful, and unnecessary comments about young CHILDREN relatives of the BLP subject. Rather than asking me to start a new discussion on the talk page about these children and salacious matters (which are already in the wikipedia page where relevant, in detail), FormalDude is welcome to start that conversation. Please review BLP rules in full and also please keep in mind that “edit warring” is not justified because you think that you are right. See: the literal definition of “edit warring”/“edit war” on this website. Copernicus43728 (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The material you have removed is an edge case for WP:3RRNO. It is sourced, so it does not clearly qualify for a 3RR exemption. Should it be restored again, your next course of action should be to discuss it at the article's talk page or the BLP noticeboard. Any further reverts to the article would be at peril of being blocked for violation of the three revert rule. —C.Fred (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions 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.

Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 20:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jason Miller (communications strategist). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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.