User talk:Mangbroson

August 2022

Your recent editing history at The Globe and Mail 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. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the section "political stance" in the wiki page? Clearly the newspaper has flip flopped over the decades. I conceded that describing them as centre left may be unfair, yet only as unfair as describing them as centre right. There is a left leaning bias where the goal posts for "right of centre" continues moves to the left. Please provide me with sufficient evidence that proves they are right leaning, good luck. Mangbroson (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mangbroson,

Your statement that, “ with its current attack oriented themes against conservative party members, it is untrue to portray this newspaper as anything on the right side of the political spectrum, especially in the short description.” This is your opinion. I can say the same about the G&M’s “attacks” on many Liberals politicians.

We have to provide more than our own personal biases in order to make claim that a media outlet is left, centre or right. I and others have done so by citing groups that measure media bias (such as the Association for Media Literacy) as well as a history of the G&M’s federal political endorsements. Luxphos (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where's these citations? Trying to find where the association for media literacy measured media bias, would love to see how they conducted this research and if it was qualitative/quantitative, confounding factors, who funded it, etc. Mangbroson (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Mark Takano 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Mark Takano, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Globe and Mail infobox has now been formally closed with remark = "Consensus is to remove the disputed wording". I regard this as vindication for your earlier attempt to remove. However, I don't regard the warning from Tamzin as wrong, since the consensus wasn't there at the time. Let's hope your next Wikipedia adventure is less troublesome, eh? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, admins often tell people, "Just because you're right doesn't mean you're not edit-warring". This is a good reminder that the flip-side is true: Just because you're edit-warring doesn't mean you're not right. :D Glad y'all sorted this out in the end. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can respect this process - I've never made edits but tamzin, although we disagreed I respect your input and I will try to be less abrasive with my writing. If you feel so inclined, provide input in the Mark Takano page I tagged you both in. I don't think I'll be able to make edits because it proves too difficult to get opinions. Mangbroson (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue to harass other editors, you may be blocked from editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope you feel safe. It seems Wikipedia values feelings over the unbiased truth. I hope you're able to find a shoulder to cry on after all this harassment, bless your soul. Mangbroson (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]