User talk:Snowcactus0

Please stop

Please stop editing my page Jonathan Hatami with biased language and poorly sourced information. Thank you. TheaEskey (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced? Please be more specific. Nothing is false. Please stop deleting. I’ve written a script that will continue to undue your edit, so please stop wasting your time. Snowcactus0 (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you’re relying on are not reliable sources per wikipedias guidelines and the language you’re using is not neutral, nor encyclopedic in tone. Look at these if you’re confused about what I’m talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encyclopedic_style and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS. Please stop or I will report you. TheaEskey (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Please report me; I’ll

do the same. Snowcactus0 (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free. I’m not the one making malicious edits on someone’s page using biased language and poorly sourced information that doesn’t conform to the standards of Wikipedia. TheaEskey (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious edits? How so?

Did he running late for Santa Claria City Council? Yes

Did he get 5th place out of 5 candidates? Yes

Did he say he was "the most conservative candidate"? Yes

Did he receive republicabn endorsements? Yes

What part are you disputing? Snowcactus0 (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, why are you trying to conceal his Santa Clarita City Council run? Please do not remove the info unless you have specific examples of why you believe it's poorly sourced. Please be more specific. Thanks; I've opened a dispute so we can resolve this with a neutral 3rd party. Snowcactus0 (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I’ve repeated multiple times the sourcing you are relying on does not conform to the sourcing standard for Wikipedia as Youtube and blogs are not considered reliable sourcing per Wikipedias guidelines of what constitutes a reliable source. Also the language you’re using is biased and not in the neutral, encyclopedic tone wiki requires CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU???? TheaEskey (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you’re relying on are not reliable sources per wikipedias guidelines and the language you’re using is not neutral, nor encyclopedic in tone. Look at these if you’re confused about what I’m talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encyclopedic_style and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheaEskey (talk • contribs) 22:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not trying to conceal anything if you can find sourcing that conforms with Wikipedias standards and write it in a neutral and encyclopedic tone, again consistent with Wikipedias guidelines I’m happy to have it in. TheaEskey (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So he didn't run for Santa Clarita City Council in 2012 and get 5th of 5 candidates? Should I change the source to this: https://santaclaritamagazine.com/2012/04/updated-city-council-election-results/? Snowcactus0 (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest first reviewing what constitutes an acceptable source and how to write with an encyclopedic neutral tone. As long as you keep what you have now, I will keep deleting it. It’s not acceptable as it currently is. TheaEskey (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jonathan Hatami. 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. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see the person who I’m deleting is posting poorly sourced content using biased language. He’s sought dispute resolution but I refuse to have it on my page. I suggest you tell him to stop. TheaEskey (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you stop edit warring and take a step back. If you can't come to consensus, you need to seek a third opinion instead of edit warring your way into a consensus. You are not the owner of any page on wikipedia. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know I’m not but there are standards are there not? TheaEskey (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the standard don’t matter then what’s the point of Wikipedia having any? TheaEskey (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can scroll up and see that I’ve asked the person to stop, and use valid sourcing and neutral language and they refuse to do so. You need to tell them to stop before me. TheaEskey (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the resources available to you. I suggest taking this to the biography of living persons noticeboard immediately. You must cease edit warring though, you've both clearly passed the rule of WP:3RR and the the BLP exemption can be contentious, hence my noticeboard suggestion. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So the standards don’t matter. Got it. Zero point in having any if they don’t apply equally. TheaEskey (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand. I'm going to report this to the edit warring noticeboard. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is unbelievable. You’re going to report me for trying to uphold the standards of the site. Unbelievable. TheaEskey (talk) 03:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know why you want me to stop but you won’t say anything to this other person. TheaEskey (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I clearly warned them. We're on their talk page... Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my bad. I’m so sorry. So how does the edit warning report go? TheaEskey (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you cease to edit and actually go to dispute resolution or the biography of living persons noticeboard, I won't report this since it's not ongoing. Both of these places have instructions for what to do at the top of the page. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I filed a dispute resolution. TheaEskey (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. On TheaEskey's talk page, you've made a statement that you've setup a script that will continue to revert them automatically. This is extremely disruptive. If even the slightest evidence of such a script is seen, you will be indefinitely blocked. -- ferret (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, what I meant was that I have it saved & formatted ready to go.

Anyhow, I don’t understand why she keeps removing this accurate info. This is all publicly available info, so she is trying to conceal which is just odd. She also is referring to it as her page. Snowcactus0 (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Partial apologies. It appears Thea copied your statements to their talk page without attributing it properly. However, you did make this threat above, and it is unacceptable. So if you have such a script, immediately remove it. 02:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Jonathan Hatami".The discussion is about the topic Jonathan Hatami.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which edits did I make that were disruptive? Snowcactus0 (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know the ones. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it’s fine; I’m new to Wikipedia, this this ban doesn’t really impact me. It’s just interesting. Happy Thanksgiving! Snowcactus0 (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snowcactus0, if you reveal personal real life details about the other editor again, your talk page access will be revoked. -- ferret (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fine. I told you; I rarely use Wikipedia. Feel free to do what you think is best. Thank you! Snowcactus0 (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, what we see on TV is not a WP:reliable source, and we do not add conclusions we have drawn from what we saw. That is called WP:original research. " All content must be cited from reliable, independent sources with a reputation for fact checking." Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry I’m not following. Why did you add the comment about TV? Is it response to something I said? Snowcactus0 (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You said you saw something on TV. Oh, if it was about another editor, please disregard. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube, but it's the same difference. -- ferret (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #81579 is closed.

Proposing interaction ban with TheaEskey and a WP:TOPICBAN on Jonathan Hatami as unblock conditions.

Thank you for using the Unblock Ticket Request System. I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. This requires greater discussion than is possible via UTRS. Please concisely and clearly describe how your editing merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks) As you still have access to your talk page, please post your unblock request to your user talk page, omitting any off-Wiki personally identifying information. If you have not already done so, please place the following at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "Your reason here "

{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Thinking about it, user should evince an understanding of WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.