User talk:Bleepenvoy

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Bleepenvoy, 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:

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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! MPS1992 (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022[edit]

It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on Robert W. Malone, may have been a change that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When making possibly controversial changes, it is good practice to first discuss your edit on the article's talk page before making it, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Wikipedia has strict rules for what counts as independent notice. The quote you are trying to shoehorn into that article is a WP:COATrack properly and until there is actual third-party discussion of the content, it does not belong in Wikipedia. jps (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was initiated -- on the article's talk page. Bleepenvoy (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was not. I have initiated it now. You should respond there with your best sources that deal with the quote. Note WP:ONUS. jps (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Robert W. Malone. 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:

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 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. Generalrelative (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generalrelative I've been directing people to the talk page to discuss removal of the quote, which, by the way, is a quote that I did not personally add to the article. There's active refusal to discuss the change on the talk page and attempts to reach consensus are being ignored. Paleo Neonate, jps, stop leaving weird fake notices on my talk page and discuss the changes on the talk page *for the article*. You're attempting to bully the removal of a quote without consensus. Bleepenvoy (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You state: There's active refusal to discuss the change on the talk page. That is demonstrably false; jps created a talk page thread to do just that and even informed you about it just above: Talk:Robert_W._Malone#Quote_is_undue. Further, despite your characterization, those weird fake notices are in fact quite normal and real. As is WP:ONUS, which is not in any way ambiguous: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Generalrelative (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't seeking to include, only seeking to Wikipedia:PRESERVE what was already present. And yes, I saw jps' talk page thread; all comments except theirs were against removal of the quote. What am I missing here? Bleepenvoy (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022[edit]

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 COVID-19, broadly construed. 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.

jps (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 articles about 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.

—Paleo Neonate – 06:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments again, as you did at Talk:Robert W. Malone, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. calling a discussion closure "disruptive editing" is not only dishonest, it's against the rules. If you have a problem with how discussions are closed, you need to discuss rather than revert. This is especially true when you are reverting people's work on a talkpage. jps (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia.

Seriously, jps, quit blocking legitimate discussion and then pretending that your changes are consensused. The talk page isn't your jurisdiction to capriciously rule over and your edits are disruptive. Bleepenvoy (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:TALK, legitimate discussion means "discussion that is about article content" and this is an even more important principle when the article is as controversial as the one we are discussing here. In the section that was archived, the OP proposed a source that was rejected by three separate Wikipedians. There was no way it was going to be used in the article. WP:CON is not something that can be appealed to as a way to abrogate WP:PAG. There is nothing jurisdictional about it. It is simply how we do things at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who published the thread you closed was attempting to discuss balance. They didn't suggest that their contextualizing source was to be included in the article proper. I ask that you be respectful towards the voices of others and stop attempting to suppress that which you find unsavory. If you feel as though you can't remain objective about a subject, recuse yourself from editing an article about it. Bleepenvoy (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOT for "discussing balance". See WP:GEVAL. We're here to report what reliable sources say and nothing more. jps (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]