User talk:Laurirang

July 2019

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-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 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.

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.

--Jorm (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Laurirang, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Laurirang! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Gab

Do you have a wp:COI with the gab social network as all of your edits seem to have been related to this one topic.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Also related to Gab, while you haven't breached the WP:3RR brightline, you are edit-warring to remove reliable sources and replace them with WP:OR - this is edit warring and could get you blocked even without the 3RR. I strongly advise you to self-revert. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not WP:OR. I am suggesting inclusion of a number that exists on another source. The "reliable source" you cite got its information from Gab's Twitter account. I will not self-revert accurate and well sourced - frankly better-sourced - information simply because you don't like it. Laurirang (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not a matter of what I like. There's several policies against what you're doing here. Now, do you have a COI to disclose? Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

You should read wp:spa, at this time you are only editing one topic area.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

2019 pt. 2

Your recent editing history at Gab (social network) 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

--Jorm (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

If an edit of yours is undone take it to talk, do not edit war.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

original research

You need to read wp:or and wp:v. The vice source did not say "1 million" (let alone "over 1 million" as you claimed), it said "almost 1 million" which is not the same.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)