User talk:Edotor

WP:POV pushing

Stop trying to push WP:FRINGE theories on WorldNetDaily or you will be reported and very likely blocked as a WP:NOTHERE WP:SPA Dronebogus (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I think that the sources added are very credible, googles own ref material, and will stand any trial, google.com have manipulated their search result which bing, duckduckgo and brave search have not done. Hence your argument is very weak. And I notice that you go in attack and intimidation mode immediately before factual debate is done which is against Wikipedia editing standards. Edotor (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don’t believe in what WP considers WP:RS so I’m refusing to have a debate you won’t engage in fairly per WP rules. You can either stop POV warring or face consequences. Dronebogus (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you got the option for factual debate, but because of your choice this will according to wikipedia standards go to the next level in the recommendation on disputes. Edotor (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know what that means, besides “debate me bro” which I told you I’m not doing because that’s not how it works. Dronebogus (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me am 45 years old and a software engineer and software architect for over 20 years, and I am not interested in unnecessary debate, but when I try to do what wikipedia encourages:

Help:Contents -> Edit an article and when I see that you as a experienced editor does not follow wikipedia protocol you make me confused.

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Follow the normal protocol have set how conflicts should be handled. There are a number of set rules there ...

Please confirm if you agree with everything stated in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If you do not agree with those then we stop right there.

The most efficient way would be to have a short audio or video conversation to avoid time waste, that would save both yours and my time. I am on google meet: meet.google.com/myu-ptxk-did, pls notify when your are available.

I have added a POV tag on the article since this has become apparent with the reference to this talk page. Edotor (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Doug Weller talk 13:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug, thank you for joining. I tried to add a google reference asserting an existing claim in the article. Two editors jumped on this immediately without following recommended wikipedia guidelines:

"There are many methods on Wikipedia for resolving disputes. Most methods are not formal processes and do not involve third-party intervention. Respond to all disputes or grievances, in the first instance, by approaching the editor or editors concerned and explaining which of their edits you object to and why you object. Use the article talk page or their user talk page to do so; be civil, polite, and always assume good faith."

Is this article informally locked for adding views that is corroborated outside wikipedia? Edotor (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Your recent editing history at WorldNet Daily 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank u for the quick reply, and thank u for the information on the three-revert rule, however since this was heavily guarded article, what facts are allowed to be added if they are corroborated outside wikipedia? I realize since facts are disputed I will use the talk page to do contributions on this article, I hope that can work. Edotor (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, who can add POV bias on an article, is there a grading/pass criteria before you can add that? Edotor (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No grading/pass criteria. We need sources that are reliably published, see Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 08:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never try to edit closed Arbitration cases

Closed means closed. Doug Weller talk 08:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank u. Got it. Edotor (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page etiquette

Just a quick FYI about WP:TALK#REVISE, to note that it's typically preferred not to edit talk page comments after you have been replied to, like in this edit. I don't think you meant any harm by it as you were clearly copy-editing, just wanted to draw your attention to it in the future, and take this opportunity to recommend a double-check prior to clicking submit. Thank you! Bakkster Man (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]