User talk:Ycringe

Hello, Ycringe, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! – Yngvadottir (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Edit warring notification

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Huffington post. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. Jim1138 (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More

Frankly, you've both been edit-warring, but Ycringe sinned first.

In addition, Ycringe, you appear to be heavily pushing this allsides.com site's conclusions onto several different pages here. Are you in any way associated with allsides.com? Please see our policy on editing with a conflict of interest (WP:COI).

But re edit-warring - Please read WP:BRD. To each of several pages, you made a (B) Bold edit, adding a claim based on material you found at allsides.com. You were (R) reverted. The next stage is supposed to be (D) discuss. Once you are reverted, any further edits by you to the disputed area are considered the beginnings of edit-warring. Edit summaries do not count as discussion.

Since at present this concerns several different pages I suggest you pick one and open a discussion about your use of allsides.com there. I specifically suggest talk:The Huffington Post as that article has had the most warring (so far, anyway). If you don't do this I will start the discussion for you later today. Jeh (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems someone already started talking about it there, though not inviting centralized discussion. Let's see what they say to my query. Jeh (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC) The wording is misleading. The huff post is not in anyway working to be a somewhat conservative inclusive paper. These sources are out of date. News sources constantly change plitical bias just like Politico few years back very liberal now today rather centrist. To conclude this new source is inaccurate is false and is blocking of relevant and accurate information.[reply]

Allsides.com

Hi Ycringe; I've put a welcome template at the top of this page because I didn't see in the history that anyone had welcomed you to Wikipedia. Sorry about that, and we are glad to have you!

However, I like others found your use of allsides.com on The Huffington Post heavy-handed, and I'm not sure how reliable it is. Moreover, when I looked at the reference, it didn't seem to be saying what you changed the article wording to. It seemed in fact to represent the site in line with what the article already said. I've raised this issue at Talk:The Huffington Post, and recommended someone else start a section at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about allsides. You may want to weigh in at either location or both. Neutral presentation of what sources say is a basic principle here, so although it's tempting to look for a source to support what one already thinks, it's important to make sure that's what the source is actually saying. Or maybe you disagree with my interpretation of what allsides is saying? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It in fact is far left just as fox news is far right on there rating scale. The scale goes left liberal, leaning left, centrist, leaning right, right conservative. Huff post is left liberal. Leaning liberal would be like Washington post, LA Times, or Buzzfeed. Centrist Centrist is Wall street journal and CNN. Lean right washington times, far right Fox new and far left huffington post.

I am willing to concede on the huff post page from further edits. But the wallstreet journal page is misportrayed by only including its political bias on opinon pieces. Its regular news is by no means considered conservative and it fable to say otherwise.

Discussions of article content (as opposed to warnings about edit-warring) belong on that article's talk page. Please discuss this further at talk:The Huffington Post. (And please sign your posts!) Jeh (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Wall Street Journal. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. Jeh (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016-12-16T07:27:31 Your original addition to the page
2016-12-16T07:41:01 Your first revert
2016-12-16T16:26:25 Your second revert
2016-12-17T04:26:16 Your third revert
2016-12-17T04:46:40 Your fourth revert
2016-12-17T05:11:44 And your fifth! (All within 24 hours) Jeh (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jeh (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Reliable and current facts is not a reason to ban or punish. Hiding of genuine information is the problem.[reply]

This guy does not know an editorial is an opinon. The wall street journal is not strictly made up of opinion (conservatice pieces). The current information on this papers political stance is incomplete at best or inaccurate with stating the news section (of facts) is the large majority of this outlet and is verifiably centrist.

I have provided reasoning and knowledge. He has simply given no reason for deletions or simply uninformed comments like who is this source. I have linked the source and he can investigate the legitmacy for himself and find out that it is fair and legitamate. The talk page many agree with huff post as well they are a leftist source not a lean liberal. This is a flat out inaccurate media bias at its finest

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.

)