User talk:Thespeedoflightneverchanges

July 2023

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Elissa Slotkin. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The list of members on the website of a caucus in a caucus is not "original research", if quoting the "members" page to show whether someone is in a caucus or not is original research all the"caucus membership" chapters should be deleted. For example, on Elissa Slotkin both her membership of New Democrat Caucus and Problem Solver caucus are sourced with archived link to the"member" page, by the same standard they should be both deleted. Thespeedoflightneverchanges (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Elissa Slotkin. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You continue to make problematic edits to Slatkin's article, in particular in relation to abortion. The WP:ONUS is on you to show that information is worthy of inclusion. She said thousands of words in each interview. Why these in particular? Multiple people have reverted your edits and you continue to WP:BLUDGEON your way through. Cpotisch (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the same standard "Slotkin vote for Roe v Wade" should also be deleted because the source from rollcall only use one of thousands of words to say slotkin voted for it and the ABC news report do not mention Slotkin at all. Thespeedoflightneverchanges (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the article has been ECPed, I just want to give you a heads up that you really need to better review Wikipedia policy, including WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:CONS, and again, WP:ONUS and WP:BLUDGEON. Repeatedly adding content to a living person's article, despite multiple other editors repeatedly voicing their opposition and asking to discuss it, is really bad behavior and it's the sort of thing that could well earn you a block if you keep at it. Wikipedia isn't Twitter, and whereas you can continue to talk about her and the abortion referendum there, you can't just force it through here. Cpotisch (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be added back? It was deleted by User:German2k2k out of personal grudge

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/slotkin-to-other-democrats-don-t-question-the-motives-of-manchin-sinema-131496005852 Thespeedoflightneverchanges (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete anything from the article out of "personal grudge." Like Cpotisch has said, WP:ONUS is still a thing and it seemed likely to me that you only added those comments to the article to push your own views. If there's a consensus reached that I was wrong for removing it, I'll own it but given that it's been removed from the article by people that aren't me I'm doubtful.

Also, putting aside everything else I've said; this isn't the place to ask, you're going to have to go to the article talk page and ask or else it's virtually useless German2k2k (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cpotisch. You need to review some of those policies. You're violating them and WP:NPOV on Sabina Matos. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are accusing Sabina Matos of not being neutral? Does "Neutral" means you cant add anything bad about radical centrist democrats on wikipedia? Thespeedoflightneverchanges (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that you are not being neutral. She is not under criminal investigation personally, her campaign is. The AP article clearly says The investigation is focused in part on part-time field campaign workers who gathered and submitted the signatures for Matos. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is another source that says "The scandal engulfing Sabina Matos’s congressional campaign worsened on Wednesday, with the Democratic lieutenant governor now facing multiple criminal investigations into forged signatures on her nomination papers amid growing questions about election integrity in Rhode Island."

https://www.wpri.com/target-12/matos-signature-scandal-spreads-across-ri-ag-now-taking-the-lead-on-investigation/ Thespeedoflightneverchanges (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am elevating this. You are too interested in edit warring to solve this one-on-one. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. If there was any question about your politics, the oxymoron of "radical centrist" would settle it. Good block, Acroterion. Ravenswing 05:05, 26 July 2023 (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; read about 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. MrOllie (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Acroterion (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad, nice username. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know we're not going to let you fuck around forever. Now you don't get to disrupt the talk page anymore either. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]