User talk:Tenzing312

Welcome!

Hello, Tenzing312, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! R2 (bleep) 21:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Hello, I'm Ahrtoodeetoo. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Glenn Greenwald, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. 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! R2 (bleep) 21:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to this page were all accurate and inform the reader of the subject of the article. The things I deleted were either not sourced or simply not relevant to the heading under which they appeared.Tenzing312 (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy isn't the requirement to comply with our BLP policy. Content must be verifiable, neutral, and not original research. R2 (bleep) 22:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Glenn Greenwald 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. R2 (bleep) 22:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The content is verifiable, neutral and not original research. One of the largest newspapers in São Paulo is a valid source document. He was, in fact, suspended by the State of New York from practicing law, which is stated right in the source document. Obviously that only applies in New York. I did not realize that his Wikipedia page was intended to only be a source of praise for him and not for accurate information.Tenzing312 (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to discuss these matters at Talk:Glenn Greenwald. R2 (bleep) 22:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]