User talk:Krieg13

August 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Mimi Walters has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Mimi Walters was changed by Krieg13 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.965843 on 2018-08-04T18:31:43+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia 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 the sandbox for that. Thank you. Citizen Canine (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Krieg13. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Mimi Walters, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. --Policy Reformer (c) 21:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Your recent editing history at Mimi Walters shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Important information you need to read

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 recently 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 are in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any 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.

This notice is due to your edits made to Mimi Walters. If you have any questions, let me know. Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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}}. Swarm ♠ 23:48, 4 August 2018 (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).

Krieg13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

None of my edits to the Mimi Walters page were malicious or inaccurate. As I stated in my edit summary, the edits to the page were to remove all partisan biases and misleading sections. Opponents of this elected official have been editing this page to manipulate her record and spin her voting history. It should be Wikipedia's highest goal to ensure only nonpartisan and spin free content is provide to preserve the integrity of this public encyclopedia. The irony is not lost on me that your rational for blocking me is in an effort to preserve the integrity of this encyclopedia, but rather you are providing for its demise. I would be less suspicious of your motives if some of my edits were approved, but to undo 100% of them speaks volumes to your unfortunate hypocrisy. When you allow content with the citation being a blog with the title "LiberalOC.com," but removing content with credible publication such as "TheHill.com" as the source, then Wikipedia is exactly what every college professor says it is... garbage.

Decline reason:

Wikipedia works by consensus. Your edits didn't have consensus and were repeatedly reverted. You need to grasp that your edits must have consensus in order to stick. At the moment you don't appreciate this and so I'm declining your unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2018 (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.

Re: "removing content with credible publication such as 'TheHill.com' as the source..." That's an opinion piece. -- Ríco 01:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note User was blocked for this incident, which I feel speaks for itself. Given that the blocked user questions my motives, any reviewing admins may modify this block without consulting me. Swarm ♠ 01:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had tried to engage user on the article in question's talk page. I'm not sure if the user got the opportunity to see that discussion and engage prior to blocking. If the user wishes to engage in dispute resolution via the talk page, I would support unblocking. @Krieg13: I'm trying to give you every benefit of the doubt. However, I do feel as if you have been attacking myself and many other editors without evidence, and I do not think it will help build consensus by referring to the project as garbage. I hope that you will consider positively engaging with the community. --Policy Reformer (c) 01:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]