User talk:StardustToStardust

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Pbritti (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veterans on Michael Johnson[edit]

Thank you for agreeing with those edits, I’d appreciate your support in re-adding them. Twillisjr (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll readd them. StardustToStardust (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician)[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) 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. Nemov (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

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.

Information icon You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them 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. Doug Weller talk 09:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Your edit summary claiming an intentional misquote (which your edit still misquoted} Doug Weller talk 09:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 1819 News. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. 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. SparklyNights 23:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ilona Bugaeva, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. CycloneYoris talk! 06:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SparklyNights 21:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning: 2024 United States presidential election[edit]

You are currently engaged in an edit war. I don’t know if you realized this, but it looks like you violated WP:3RR, so I would recommend that you self-revert your last revert, and quit making additional reverts for the time being. Thanks. Prcc27 (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry what part do you want reverted? StardustToStardust (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your most recent revert per WP:3RR: “If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion.” Prcc27 (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What edit are you talking about? StardustToStardust (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot undo other people's edits three times within a 24 hour period, that's called edit warring. SparklyNights 02:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was your fourth revert. Prcc27 (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is your objection to the "seems to" wording? I'm sorry. I didn't intentionally try and revert anything StardustToStardust (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether I object or not is besides the point. When you make a fourth revert, you are supposed to self-revert once you realize you did so. A revert is when you undo a user’s edit back to a previous version, so yes, that definitely counts as a revert. Prcc27 (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what wasn't reverted. I don't know what I'm supposed to revert. StardustToStardust (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already gave you the link. All you would do is press the undo button near your username. Prcc27 (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Prcc27 (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing 2024 United States presidential election for a period of 72 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
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 ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arab-Israeli conflict alert[edit]

Information icon You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally editors must be logged-in have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Politrukki (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ali edits[edit]

Hey, @StardustToStardust:. There's no evidence that Ali underwent an arranged marriage. You need to check the accuracy of your edits before performing one. I kept the rest of the edit. KlayCax (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ilona Bugaeva moved to draftspace[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Ilona Bugaeva. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CycloneYoris talk! 06:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ilona Bugaeva for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ilona Bugaeva is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilona Bugaeva until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring revisited[edit]

I see that you’ve been edit warring again on the 2024 United States presidential election article. You are 1 edit away from a WP:3RR violation. Please be advised that you can be banned for editing warring, even if you do not violate 3RR, especially on a contentious topic article. Prcc27 (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only consensus is for Kennedy. The WP: ONUS is on you to get consensus for West. To me: he seems like a unserious spoiler candidate whose only possible contribution to the election is throwing the election to Trump. StardustToStardust (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And now you’re canvassing? I suggest you take a step back from the article. The next disruption you make, I will be getting administrators involved. There is no consensus for any of the aggregates to be included. If West will have an impact in which he acts as a spoiler candidate that throws the election to Trump, our readers deserve to know that. Regardless, there is no excuse for disruptive behavior like edit warring and canvassing. Prcc27 (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't carnvassed anyone. The person I tagged was already involved and directly comments minutes before in the conversation. StardustToStardust (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You canvassed them in a section that was not even related to polling. Prcc27 (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, they commented right above (and in response) to you. StardustToStardust (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They were commenting about the lead, not about polls. Either way, when you tag a user, your comments should be neutral, otherwise it comes off as votestacking (please read WP:CANVASS). Prcc27 (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't agree with my positions. That's not canvassing. (Per the rule.) I was just responding to both of you. StardustToStardust (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you were trying to get him to agree, so yes, it still counts. Prcc27 (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was already engaged in the conversation. Of course I want other editors to see my viewpoint. StardustToStardust (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was in the conversation about the lead, not about the polling aggregates. Anyways, do not say I didn’t warn you.. Prcc27 (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a threat? StardustToStardust (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it’s a warning not to violate Wikipedia policy. Prcc27 (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't violate policy. StardustToStardust (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per KlayCax, you also need to brush up on WP:POINT. Prcc27 (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are now at 3 reverts, 1 revert away from a WP:3RR violation. If you keep edit warring, even if you do not violate 3RR, I will ask an admin to get involved. You’re on thin ice. Please get consensus at talk. Prcc27 (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus. You're steamrolling the lead with your personal opinions of what is important. Climate change isn't mentioned in any of the sources. StardustToStardust (talk) 05:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I actually did not write that paragraph of the lead. I am just restoring it back to the status quo, because the foreign policy bit definitely reeks of WP:RECENTISM. Also, I did not re-add climate change this time per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, and you should not re-add immigration for the same reason. The Dobbs wording has 2-1 !votes. Prcc27 (talk) 06:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content from the lead at Henry Kissinger[edit]

In this edit, I manually reverted this edit by you. Removing sourced claims that Kissinger is a controversial figure does not align with WP:NPOV or WP:NOTCENSORED. If you think the lead is too long, you should (1) wait for a less volatile time to make these changes, (2) consult MOS:LEADLENGTH, and (3) try not to make a lopsided removal. Thanks. Wracking talk! 04:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Close to 3RR[edit]

You keep coming dangerously close to a WP:3RR violation (you are one edit away from one right now). But remember, you can still be banned for edit warring if the behavior is consistent, especially on a contentious topic article, even if you technically do not go over 3RR. If you continue to edit-war, I will not hesitate to report your behavior. Prcc27 (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because you added a POV-pushing edit.
Authoritarian, seriously? StardustToStardust (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter if you feel my edit (which was not originally made by me fyi) is POV. It is still disruptive to edit war. Also, I am talking about your actions as a whole, not just that one specific edit. Prcc27 (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grzegorz Braun[edit]

Hi, StardustToStardust. This is a pretty misleading edit summary. You didn't move it anywhere, you just removed it. An accident? You don't otherwise seem to be in the business of whitewashing Braun. Bishonen | tålk 20:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I replaced it with "best known for antisemitism".
Less of a euphemism. StardustToStardust (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Large-scale removal of content[edit]

Hi StardustToStardust, I recently reverted your edit to Cornel West 2024 presidential campaign, where you removed 13,336 characters with the edit summary This is the definition of WP: NPOV and the fact that Wikipedia isn't a news station.[1] The content you removed was generally related to West's polling numbers and highly-cited discussion of him diverting votes from Biden. I found your explanation for removal wholly insufficient in this case; the content did not violate WP:NPOV or WP:NOTNEWS. (If you think it did, let's talk at Talk:Cornel West 2024 presidential campaign.)

I noticed that you have made major removals at other Wikipedia articles, and that they have also been reverted often. Twice, you have claimed you would move removed text elsewhere (while not doing so).[2][3]. These are considered misleading edit summaries and should be avoided in the future.

I recommend you read WP:PRESERVE, which highlights the importance of improving Wikipedia by building it, rather than by simply deleting content that doesn't meet a certain standard. If you think large amounts of content should be deleted, please consider being more cautious by starting a discussion on the talk page (WP:CAUTIOUS). If you choose to go forward with the WP:BRD strategy, please refrain from edit warring. I also recommend you review WP:NPOV, as many of your edits citing this policy have been reverted.

Thanks, Wracking talk! 23:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Thanksgiving (United States), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, there was no discussion of removing that content. You need to actually start a discussion to generate consensus. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And also please folllow @Wracking's advice above. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote on talk page. See there. StardustToStardust (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Thanksgiving (United States), you may be blocked from editing. As you have been told, this conversation should take place at Talk:Thanksgiving (United States). Wracking talk! 21:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Fiducia supplicans, you may be blocked from editing. Multiple pieces of content you claim were sourced to this article were in fact not present. Pbritti (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced. There's widespread blessings of same-sex unions within the Austrian, German, American, French, and Belgium churches, citing the document. StardustToStardust (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the LA Times source, please indicate where you pulled sourcing for this: "The declaration was described as being part of Francis's efforts at greater LGBT inclusion in the Catholic Church, and viewed by many theologians and commentators as a dramatic stepping stone to future marriage equality". Nothing approximating "stepping stone" or allyship was addressed, and the article even argued that the step was far from marriage equality. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stepping stone *towards* same-sex marriage. The leading bishops in Belgium, Germany, France, Austria, and several other nations have described it as such. No one's saying that it means that it's officially allowed within the Church at the present time. StardustToStardust (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted the content you added to the article, and you did not provide clarity on where in the LA Times source any of that is verified. Please identify where in the source any of those statements are verified. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the other article. The fact that it's seen as a stepping stone within factions of the Catholic Church (and most commentators) to same-sex marriage is indisputable. StardustToStardust (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That does not answer the question. What material was being referenced from the LA Times article? Why did you cite it? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was a citation error. It's now fixed. StardustToStardust (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have been warned before about accuracy and sourcing. Please ensure that you cite articles only when they verify content adjacent to said citation. Thank you for addressing the issue. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Fiducia supplicans. AgisdeSparte (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was how the document was interpreted. I'm personally opposed to same-sex marriage. StardustToStardust (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification[edit]

Good afternoon. I notice that you began editing in October of this year, and have overwhelmingly edited with respect to current American politics. Would I be correct in concluding that your primary intention as an editor is to represent your political viewpoints? BD2412 T 18:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what you mean on that. Correcting things I see as bias towards particular political viewpoints or perspectives? Sure.
Although I'm also here to edit more broadly. StardustToStardust (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I have generally suggested to new editors that they make a thousand useful edits in areas completely outside their interest before delving into areas of interest, so they will come to understand the workings of the project before they make mistakes in the editing of subject they care about. I am well beyond that point myself, and I still occasionally find myself accused of being, in about equal measure, a "right-wing nut" or a "shill for the left", depending on which article I am striving to keep neutral and steer away from political agendas. I think that means that I have struck just the right balance. BD2412 T 22:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Francis[edit]

You have repeatedly inserted factual inaccuracies into Pope Francis. This is understandable, considering the confusing nature of current reporting and Catholic theology related to these developments. Fiducia supplicans was not issued forma specifica, meaning Pope Francis did not co-sign the document (though it does automatically bear his approval upon issuance; see here). Additionally, the declaration does not authorize the blessing of same-sex unions, but rather the individuals in a same-sex couple. This is a major distinction doctrinally, though initial reporting got this distinction wrong. Many RSs have since published corrected stories. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a minority of traditionalist sources. It does authorize the blessing of same-sex unions. The leading bishopof Austria stated it was no longer possible for priests to deny blessing the union itself. StardustToStardust (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, by the way, vandalism has a specific definition on Wikipedia. This was an incorrect invocation of the vandalism exemption. Not pursuing it as an issue because, like the sourcing policy we discussed earlier, you appear to be attempting to follow policy but have reasonably made a mistake. If you have a question, let me know. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be more mindful. Thanks for notifying me! StardustToStardust (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for habitual edit warring.
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 ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:StardustToStardust&oldid=1191499100"