User talk:Dickenseditor

Welcome!

Hello, Dickenseditor!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Doug Weller talk 16:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Hugh Jackman. Thank you. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't realize their divorce was still ongoing. Thx. Cheers. Dickenseditor (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics covering all pages on post 1992 American politics.

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 16:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Raladic (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

cheers, thx. Dickenseditor (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Hello, I'm Raladic. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Ideological bias on Wikipedia, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Raladic (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WP article itself mentioned the left-leaning bias and the Introduction, per WP guidelines, simply summarized these findings. Please read full article before posting on my wall in the future. Dickenseditor (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at The Heritage Foundation, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Raladic (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, going through my edits without fully reviewing them to justify your (at this point, harassment) isn't constructive. Remember our mission here is to improve, not bias the language under the guise of improvement. Dickenseditor (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Twelve Tribes communities 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; read about 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. Raladic (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at United States v. Skrmetti. Raladic (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try --- I provided multiple reasons, actually. It's probably easier for you to say there were none provided than to have read all of htem. I've copied them below for your convenience.

removed biased language --- this para comes out of nowhere and has very little (if anything) to do w/ the case being at SCOTUS; doesn't list how many doctors there are total; doesn't list what percentage "four" is; provides no counter-argument (e.g., that nearly every country in the world has banned these so-called treatments for youth, or that none of the treatments have been designed for said purpose); etc. If this needs to be re-inserted, suggest moving to a new subtitle outside of SCOTUS Dickenseditor (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2024 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dickenseditor reported by User:Raladic (Result: ). Thank you. Raladic (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more on policies

Hi Dickenseditor. Welcome to Wikipedia.

I saw your comment to Doug Weller about policies and guidelines [1] and your comment about having a great deal of editorial experience. Wikipedia could certainly benefit from your expertise, but I agree with Doug that you still have a great deal to learn here.

I highly recommend learning Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are usually resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

cheers, thanks. Dickenseditor (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Civility on talk pages

Hello,

I've noticed that you are new on Wikipedia and I want to bring one of our core principles to your attention. Please note that Wikipedians are required to maintain a civil tone when contributing, in line with our talk page guidelines and our five pillars. Comments like this one don't really do much to move the conversation forward, as they can be seen as uncivil.

If you are experiencing incivility from other editors on talk pages, or in their edit summaries anywhere, please do not return the incivility in kind or to other editors—even if it is frustrating to not do so. Rather, please consider leaving the editor a civil message on their talk page explaining that they have been uncivil, or (if this is something that is a pattern for an editor) feel free to contact an administrator in line with our guidance on handling user conduct disputes.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey just want to make sure that you made the same or similar comment about civility to the OP in question. If not, please remember to make corrections fairly, not only against those who disagree with you. Dickenseditor (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TarnishedPath^talk 03:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder with NPOV

Hey there. I reverted your latest edits to Matt Gaetz. You removed the mention of him as "far-right" despite it being shown with 6 sources. Neutral point of view does not mean hiding that; it means telling what the reliable sources say on the articles. If you think all of those 6 sources aren't enough to characterize him as far-right, open a discussion the talk page. Regards, win8x (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, thx. Dickenseditor (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for persistent tendentious editing

You have been blocked for a month for persistent tendentious editing. Recently, you added the sentence "Many, including Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, have noted the left-wing bias in Wikipedia" to the lead section of Ideological bias on Wikipedia, for which you were warned by Raladic. You replied claiming that you had simply summarized findings further down in the article. The article does indeed contain a whole section entitled "Liberal and left-wing bias", but that sections consists of carefully attributed accusations of left-wing bias, and is itself a subsection of "Claims in the media about Wikipedia's ideological bias" (my italics). That does not mean you can add a statement in Wikipedia's voice that "Many, including Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, have noted the left-wing bias in Wikipedia". "Noted" and "the left-wing bias" makes your wording classic Wikivoice, so it does by no means, as you suggest in your reply to Raladic above, correspond to the text further down in the article. As a contrast, when you removed the sentence "The New York Times reported The Heritage Foundation spread some false information about the 2024 election" from the lead of The Heritage Foundation, that sentence had referred to a long, very well-sourced, and appropriately wikivoiced paragraph in the section "Voter fraud claims". Did you read the full article before editing its lead? This removal of well-sourced content is downright POV-pushing. I have also taken into account the opinions and examples offered by several admins at the edit warring noticeboard. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 15:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Note: I've given a few recent examples. There are more. Bishonen | tålk 16:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

clarification. . .

1) the sentence you are suggesting I deleted, I actually self-restored.

2) the entire reason that sentence is currently being used is because I followed Wikipedia's BRD guideline; the original sentence was: "The Heritage Foundation has been credibly reported as having been spreading false information to sow doubt and foment fear about the 2024 election." After I suggested that there was only one article that suggested as much, others agreed, and they still wanted it noted somehow in the lead. While I disagreed with that, I eventually self-reverted my edits, because we'd at least found compromise by using the sentence, ""The New York Times reported The Heritage Foundation spread some false information about the 2024 election". So, to be clear, the sentence currently being used is used because of A) my input and B) compromising consensus arrived at because of my discussion, which . . . isn't that hos this is supposed to work? Dickenseditor (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my impression of the article talkpage. I also don't pretend to understand why, after edit warring with two editors to remove the sentence The New York Times reported The Heritage Foundation spread some false information about the 2024 election from The Heritage Foundation, you seem to have gone on to edit war with yourself, adding, re-removing and re-adding the sentence in the space of half an hour. But I have already gone into some detail above; I'd rather leave further discussion to a reviewing uninvolved administrator. You can request unblock from an uninvolved admin by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} below, replacing "your reason here" with any explanations you like - there is no limit as to length, though conciseness is appreciated. Still, you may want to address your original version of the sentence also, which you added in October: One journalist from the New York Times (whose opinion section has been independently verified as "left [ref]", and has officially endorsed Kamala Harris as president in the 2024 election [ref]) has suggested that Heritage Foundation has spread some false information about the 2024 election., with which you replaced the sentence The Heritage Foundation has been credibly reported as having been spreading false information to sow doubt and foment fear about the 2024 election.[ref]. (Not tendentious?) Bishonen | tålk 23:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I wasn't edit-warring with myself intentionally haha: 1) I accidentally published early in my edits, 2) I realized that the others had agreed (to a point, to be fair) and compromised by placing something in the lede, but w/ the note that it was from the "NYT," which I realized was a fair compromise; 3) I then self-reverted, realizing I was close or at 3RR/Bright Line, which I hadn't realized I was even close to. Dickenseditor (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to waste your and esp. not my time, but just pointing out the basic point that the current (well-constructed, I might add) sentence was a result of my actions. The initial was admittedly silly, but it made the point well enough that other editors agreed that it needed to be noted that NYT was the source. Dickenseditor (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]