User talk:Fifth Harmony Fanboy

Welcome!

Hello, Fifth Harmony Fanboy, 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:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Important notice regarding edits in certain topic areas

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.

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

--Neutrality^talk 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Your removal of the NPOV tag on the Racial equality section deserves "discretionary sanctions" more than any of my edits. Some of your edits, I've agreed to. When you're editing in such a way that Buttigieg's record and actions matter less than his words, you're adding bias to the article. Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Consensus, edit warring, BLP and deceptive use of sources

Welcome to Wikipedia. Re your edits and reversions to Pete Buttigieg, please take the time to carefully read the following site policies:

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - There is a heightened degree of scrutiny required to include negative material about living persons.
• Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Edit warring, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle - when another editor objects to your edits, and explains the reasons why, you must seek and obtain consensus before restoring that material. You have repeatedly re-inserted material removed by other editors without obtaining consensus. And the particular article you have been editing is also under WP:1RR.
• Wikipedia:Verifiability, especially WP:ONUS - the principle that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content."

I am particularly concerned about your deceptive use of sources. On two occasions (first occasion and second occasion), you added text stating that the South Bend crime rate went up during Buttigieg's tenure. But the actual source material cited conveys the exact opposite — that a "deeper dig into South Bend's crime statistics shows a change in reporting practices rather than a rise in violent crime" and that attacks on Buttigieg related to urban crime are misleading. Indeed, even the headline makes this clear ("South Bend and St. Louis, Where Crime Statistics Can Mislead: City limits can affect perceptions, and a criticism of Mayor Pete Buttigieg doesn’t hold up.").

Please read the policies I linked above and self-revert your recent edits. Neutrality^talk 15:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)