User talk:Historyturtle
July 2020
[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Important notices re: edits in certain topic areas
[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 post-1932 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.
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.
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 pseudoscience and fringe science. 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.
--Neutralitytalk 17:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
July 2020
[edit]
You currently appear to be 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. 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. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Ben Swann
[edit]Hi. You say you are bewildered as to why your edits were reverted. I don't like people to feel they have been unfairly treated, so I will try to explain.
Firstly, you added "Emmy award winning and Edward R. Murrow Award winning" to the lead sentence. We do not usually put plaudits and awards in the lead sentence, because it makes them more cluttered, and looks like what we call peacocking. That is, you are trying to impress the reader how important the subject is, without explaining much. In this case;
- What's an Emmy award? Maybe they don't know. What did he win it for?
- What's an Edward R. Murrow Award. Most people won't know. What, why did he win it for? Is that impressive, or just good? Or even relevant?
These are all questions that distract from the lead sentence's purpose of succinctly explaining who the subject is/was and what they do/did. There is plenty of opportunity to introduce their awards later in the lead.
Secondly, you changed mentions of "conspiracy theories" to "controversial topics", "complicated narrative", "facts contrary to the official government reports" and "internal conflicts". The purpose of the lead is to summarise the content of the article. The article is clear that these are all conspiracy theories and Swann was repeating conspiracy theories. Wikipedia guideline on "fringe theories" is that there is no obligation to give minority ideas, that run contrary to the mainstream, equal credence or consideration. It is therefore entirely proper to treat conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories. If you have some radical new, sourced, information that changes their status then I suggest you re-write the article to reflect this, rather than just the lead.
Thirdly, you repeated your edit with the edit summary of "inserted a space". This was not what your edit was. I'm sure it was a mistake, but this is a deceptive tactic sometimes used by those editing in bad faith, to try and disguise what they're really doing. (It doesn't work.) Please try and make your edit summaries a fair description of your edit, to avoid any misunderstandings.
Lastly, edit warring is when you change an article repeatedly back to what you want, despite being reverted by other editors. This is disruptive and a waste of everyone's time and effort. It can be frustrating, I know. But the correct thing to do when reverted is to discuss your edit , and try to establish a consensus. Just repeating it will not get you anywhere except possibly blocked from editing.
Hope this helps explain better why your edit was reverted by myself and others. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)