User talk:Abe5678

Welcome!

Hello, Abe5678, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Venustas 12 (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits of the Chris Collins Article

Hello, Abe5678. Regarding your recent edits of Chris Collins (county executive), please understand that the additions I and others have made about Collins' interview with The Batavian are not "inappropriate," nor are they "overly political." The simple fact is that the news is out there, and it reached a large number of people across the country and overseas, so it should be reflected on his Wikipedia page.

Moreover, now that Collins is more prominently in the public eye, the other summaries of past controversies, while local ones, have also arguably gained relevance. If you wish to add in any further responses by Collins himself or others who have defended him (in addition to the one I have already included), that would be a thoroughly appropriate action. But blotting out the entire section is not the answer.

Sssppp888222 (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Abe5678. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sssppp888222 (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abe5678, I suggest that if you have concerns with the Chris Collins (county executive) article, you discuss them at the article's talk page. Otherwise, your continued removal of the text without further explanation may be interpreted as edit warring, which could lead to your account being blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formal warning about three revert rule

Your recent editing history at Chris Collins (county executive) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —C.Fred (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —C.Fred (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biased edits

It's one thing to post accurate comments like Collins compared Silver to the AntiChrist. It's another thing to post false accusation like the lap dance comment that were denied, never substantiated, and were clearly political in nature from Lazio supporters. It's one thing to mention the cancer comment and another to omit the fact that Howard Owens stated that Collins' opponent Kathy Hochul clearly and deliberately took the comment out of context for political gain. The comments posted are clearly being posted by supporters of Collins opponent Kathy Hochul with an overly distorted and biased view.

Had you mentioned that at Talk:Chris Collins (county executive), and had you provided a reliable source for your assertion about Hochul right now, you likely wouldn't be blocked right now. —C.Fred (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that said, make sure you provide sources for your assertions like "The new district is the most conservative Republican district in New York" and "landslide" votes.[1] Describing the election as a landslide could also be perceived as biased, especially since it was only a 60:40 margin. —C.Fred (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking only for myself, I had no political motivation in adding information about Collins' comments on cancer, nor in continually restoring that information. I read about the story on a news portal, immediately searched for Collins' Wikipedia page, and was surprised to see such a widely distributed story hadn't been mentioned. So I did some more research and updated the article, making sure to include the comments I'd found that supported Collins' side. My motivation in this was nothing other than ensuring that a relevant, nationally distributed story receive proper mention here. Sssppp888222 (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Collins and Succession

Hi. I'd invited to you to visit The Congress Wikiproject. Our long-standing policy with respect to congressional districts and successory/predecessor issues has been to follow the district-number convention, rather than the electoral one. I know it seems odd, but it is the simplest solution and is how every represenative article is currently structured to address redistricting. The issue has been debated extensively at the WikiProject and on individual member pages. I see you've been warned about editing warring on the Chris Collins article before, so I would encourage you to take this matter up at the WikiProject for further discussion if you feel it is warranted. Thanks.DCmacnut <> 15:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]