User talk:Cowwaw

A belated welcome!

I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice: post-1992 American politics

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-1992 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.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Reverse discrimination; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Respond to attacks" does not equate to "rebuff criticisms". If you wanted to argue that the report is an unreliable source, that would at least lead to a productive discussion. Your edits appear to be blatant improper synthesis and POV-pushing. Please raise your objections about the source on the article talk page. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf: I'm not clear on how to 'talk' directly to you on this topic. Googling how a thread works on an edit is not turning up anything. For context on this edit:

> When a news story shares the arguments a lawyer makes on behalf of a client, they make it clear that lawyer is acting in the interest of the client. That does not mean the lawyer is lying or wrong. It does mean information, much like marketing, is picked carefully and positioned carefully to argue for the client.

> In this case, that was, in his own words, the role Mr. Blumrosen was in. He was not in the position of preparing an a research document as a disinterested neutral party. This motivation should be clear to a reader of wikipedia Cowwaw (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blumrosen's "motivation" is your own original research and doesn't belong in the article; I've removed it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-- Context on the research is there by the author's direct comment - please see the included quote. For some reason Sangdeboeuf seems to want to suppress visibility for readers on this. Any context on what that author wrote is repeatedly cut by Sangdeboeuf, and only by Sangdeboeuf, most recently by claiming is that it is original research. That is a straw-man, as inclusion of the entire paragraph at all, by that logic could be called 'original research.' Undid revision 1018024289 by Sangdeboeuf (talk)

No, you are misquoting the author. Kindly stop. Thank you. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Reverse discrimination#Blumrosen report for further discussion. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on you to obtain consensus before adding disputed material. Edit-warring is the wrong way to go about that. Please stop. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Please do not add your local time manually, since this will not match the page history time index, and may interfere with archiving. If you omit the timestamp by mistake, you can add it automatically by typing five tildes ( ~~~~~ ). Thank you. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]