User talk:TexasHoosier

October 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Restored Hope Network. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Restored Hope Network; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Grayfell (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, TexasHoosier. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Restored Hope Network, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest 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, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
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 are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Grayfell

Response from Texas Hoosier: I am not sure why you believe I have a conflict of interest on the subject. I actually had never heard of this organization prior to reading a news article today. Upon reading the website of the organization and the Wikipedia page, I saw there were large disparities between what the organization says it believes, and what other (news/blog) sites say the organization believes. I believe it is disingenuous not to present both sides of an argument where there are two, and not just the narrative of one side.

I also see that others have referenced the organization's website (see "Positions" section), so I don't know why it would be appropriate to do so in one section and not another.

Thank you for clarifying. The best place to discuss specific issues is the article's talk page. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Your recent editing history at Restored Hope 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Grayfell (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above template message is specifically because you have violated a bright line rule:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.

This is explained in more detail at WP:3RR. Discuss on the article's talk page, and gain consensus, before editing the article again. Grayfell (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Signing your talk page comments

To sign your talk page messages, just put four tildes in a row - that's ~~~~ - at the end of your message. Wikipedia will change that into your user name, relevant links, and a time stamp.

(And if you forget: if you're using the standard editor, there's a button to click right next to the B for bold and I for italic that looks like a little squiggle. Clicking that will add what you need.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation, I appreciate it. TexasHoosier (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as I'm giving information here, there's one question you had at Talk:Restored Hope Network which is more of a "how does Wikipedia work" question than something specific to that, which is why there are references citing the Restored Hope Network's website when we said it wasn't appropriate to do so for this particular item. As you'll see at WP:SELFSOURCE, we allow people and organizations to be sources of information about themselves, generally mundane stuff that is not boastful, controversial, involving others, or likely to be untrue. So for example, an article about me could use my website to establish that I was born in Camden, New Jersey, but not that I'm King of Spain. We cannot use Billy Joel as a source for saying that he didn't start the fire. Also, we don't use self-sourced material to tell us what's important and deserving of coverage, so if you use my page to say I was born in Camden, New Jersey, that's the sort of mundane information we're likely to put in any other article, but if you want to say that I own more Peanuts books than any grown man should ever have, you'll need a third party source talking about it to show it's important enough to include. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]