User talk:MasteredDegree

September 2022

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to The 1619 Project have 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: The 1619 Project was changed by MasteredDegree (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.862706 on 2022-09-18T15:17:08+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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. Acroterion (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not an edit war. An automated bot accidentally deleted my edit and I believe some other editor got confused. I added citations and am discussing on the talk page, so false alarm. MasteredDegree (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your'e edit-warring. Get consensus on the article talkpage, and don't insert the content again until that is achieved. You're going to need a lot more and better sources, and you're going to need to look for a consensus of reliable sources, not just individual opinions, before making broad assertions in Wikipedia's voice. You could make the assertion in an appropriate part of the article, attributing the opinion in the text to the author, presuming first that the author is of some note in their own right, whose views have standing for inclusion. You're still going to need consensus for that. The lead is a summary of the sourced body of the article, not a platform for assertions that aren't included in the article body. Acroterion (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "You're". MasteredDegree (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Attack on Paul Pelosi. 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 ~~~~}}. Prolog (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was obviously done in error. Clearly some warning or communication would have been given if it weren't. MasteredDegree (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned twice, including just two days ago. Furthermore, you were edit warring against the consensus that your removals were unjustified. Prolog (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is obviously incorrect. MasteredDegree (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you two days ago, and you removed my warning as spam. You have been edit warring for four days straight. Cullen328 (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing. Not edit warring. You're mistaken. MasteredDegree (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are just providing more evidence that you do not understand what edit warring is. You are entitled to hold incorrect opinions, but you will not be permitted to edit war. That is simply not going to happen here on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you're mistaken. MasteredDegree (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're not supposed to question the admins here, otherwise they'll invent a fake reason to permanently block you. MasteredDegree (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]