Hello, Bleepenvoy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! MPS1992 ( talk) 00:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on Robert W. Malone, may have been a change that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When making possibly controversial changes, it is good practice to first discuss your edit on the article's talk page before making it, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Wikipedia has strict rules for what counts as independent notice. The quote you are trying to shoehorn into that article is a WP:COATrack properly and until there is actual third-party discussion of the content, it does not belong in Wikipedia. jps ( talk) 02:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Robert W. Malone. 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:
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. Generalrelative ( talk) 04:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
There's active refusal to discuss the change on the talk page. That is demonstrably false; jps created a talk page thread to do just that and even informed you about it just above: Talk:Robert_W._Malone#Quote_is_undue. Further, despite your characterization, those
weird fake noticesare in fact quite normal and real. As is WP:ONUS, which is not in any way ambiguous:
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.Generalrelative ( talk) 07:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
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 COVID-19, broadly construed. 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.
jps ( talk) 05:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
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.
— Paleo Neonate – 06:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments again, as you did at Talk:Robert W. Malone, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. calling a discussion closure "disruptive editing" is not only dishonest, it's against the rules. If you have a problem with how discussions are closed, you need to discuss rather than revert. This is especially true when you are reverting people's work on a talkpage. jps ( talk) 00:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is WP:NOT for "discussing balance". See WP:GEVAL. We're here to report what reliable sources say and nothing more. jps ( talk) 02:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Bleepenvoy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! MPS1992 ( talk) 00:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on Robert W. Malone, may have been a change that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When making possibly controversial changes, it is good practice to first discuss your edit on the article's talk page before making it, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Wikipedia has strict rules for what counts as independent notice. The quote you are trying to shoehorn into that article is a WP:COATrack properly and until there is actual third-party discussion of the content, it does not belong in Wikipedia. jps ( talk) 02:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Robert W. Malone. 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:
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. Generalrelative ( talk) 04:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
There's active refusal to discuss the change on the talk page. That is demonstrably false; jps created a talk page thread to do just that and even informed you about it just above: Talk:Robert_W._Malone#Quote_is_undue. Further, despite your characterization, those
weird fake noticesare in fact quite normal and real. As is WP:ONUS, which is not in any way ambiguous:
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.Generalrelative ( talk) 07:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
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 COVID-19, broadly construed. 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.
jps ( talk) 05:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
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.
— Paleo Neonate – 06:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments again, as you did at Talk:Robert W. Malone, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. calling a discussion closure "disruptive editing" is not only dishonest, it's against the rules. If you have a problem with how discussions are closed, you need to discuss rather than revert. This is especially true when you are reverting people's work on a talkpage. jps ( talk) 00:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is WP:NOT for "discussing balance". See WP:GEVAL. We're here to report what reliable sources say and nothing more. jps ( talk) 02:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)