User talk:Grenvilledodge

August 2022

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Don Bacon, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." This is a reliable source. Grenvilledodge (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the revision's language for precision and added a second reliable source. If you are aware of a more reliable source for the subject's response to a Nebraska Right to Life survey than the Nebraska Right to Life organization and a news outlet reporting on the Nebraska Right to Life survey, I would be happy to use it as a source. Grenvilledodge (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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.--MONGO (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: NE-02

This is exceptionally petty, but you get what you want, I'm tired of dealing with issues like this on this site and it's honestly a huge waste of time for me to continue to engage constructively when it means dealing with this every couple months. Not going to pursue this further, this is my last edit and I'll be scrambling the password for this account. Stroopwafels (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content alert

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

Barkeep49 (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Grenvilledodge (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no idea how to contact you. Just want to say great job upholding the standards of wikipedia against encroachment from bad actors on the Destiny article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1470:E240:DD50:EFB2:5B65:6D31 (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]