User talk:Glenstorm85

Welcome!

Hi Glenstorm85! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Rollidan (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Hello, I'm RandomAct. I noticed that in this edit to McGill University School of Religious Studies, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. RandomAct^{(talk to me)} 03:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I included an edit summary, actually. I will revisit the page, reconsider the edits, and elaborate further in the edit summary if the edits are still appropriate. Thank you. Glenstorm85 (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm 331dot. I noticed that you recently removed content from Herschel Walker without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is inaccurate. I included an edit summary, as the record of my edit shows, and that summary links to the Wikipedia editorial board's clear guidance on the proper inclusion of quotations in a manner that supports a neutral voice. In case you missed the link in my edit summary, here it is: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations_and_neutrality . I encourage you to read it and re-evaluate your perspective on the quotes on question. Additionally, you may review the BLP violation notice posted here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Herschel_Walker Glenstorm85 (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

331dot (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no "editoral board" so I don't know what that term refers to. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Herschel Walker 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Herschel Walker. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:44, 4 September 2022 (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:Glenstorm85 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: ). Thank you. PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to decide if you are here to collaborate with others to reach a consensus in how independent reliable sources are summarized, or to push a pro-Herschel Walker agenda. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]