Hello, I'm
Muboshgu. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a
neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 15:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at
Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud, you may be
blocked from editing. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 15:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
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; read about 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. – Muboshgu ( talk) 15:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 16:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Existentialist Degenerate ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please unblock me. You were the one reverting and engaging in an edit war with me, not responding to my inquires on the talk page. If I can be unblocked, I'll be happy to refrain from continued reversions on the article and to have a neutral mediator work with us toward a resolution. Existentialist Degenerate ( talk) 16:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Clear edit warring, no indication that there's a consensus on the talk page for your edits. Yamla ( talk) 17:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Also, to the person who edited my user page citing BLP, please note that Adorno is long dead. Existentialist Degenerate ( talk) 17:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
False or misleading statements by Donald Trump:
When a "sky is blue" type of fact is universally confirmed by RS, we are allowed to use wikivoice (editorial voice) to just say it, without continually adding sourcing. Trump is a massive liar, and we state that often because that is the universal consensus of RS and experts. As long as you do not accept and believe what RS say about this, you'll have a hard time editing American politics subjects. We want editors who are realists, who derive their opinions from RS, and are not deceived by fringe sources.
List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. (When Wikipedia uses "conspiracy theory" in a title, that means it is false.)
NPOV means that editors center themselves and their editing right over the position of RS, even when that position is left or right of center. We do not aim for a middle/neutral position. We just aim to be neutral in our editing by not censoring or slanting coverage from what RS say, and they are rarely "middle". You might benefit from reading my essay about how we deal with biased sources and biased content, which are allowed here: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 17:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
References
Kessler_12/30/2018
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).McGranahan
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Skjeseth_2017
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Glasser_8/3/2018
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Davis_Sinnreich_5/14/2020
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
Hello, I'm
Muboshgu. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a
neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 15:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at
Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud, you may be
blocked from editing. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 15:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
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; read about 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. – Muboshgu ( talk) 15:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 16:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Existentialist Degenerate ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please unblock me. You were the one reverting and engaging in an edit war with me, not responding to my inquires on the talk page. If I can be unblocked, I'll be happy to refrain from continued reversions on the article and to have a neutral mediator work with us toward a resolution. Existentialist Degenerate ( talk) 16:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Clear edit warring, no indication that there's a consensus on the talk page for your edits. Yamla ( talk) 17:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Also, to the person who edited my user page citing BLP, please note that Adorno is long dead. Existentialist Degenerate ( talk) 17:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
False or misleading statements by Donald Trump:
When a "sky is blue" type of fact is universally confirmed by RS, we are allowed to use wikivoice (editorial voice) to just say it, without continually adding sourcing. Trump is a massive liar, and we state that often because that is the universal consensus of RS and experts. As long as you do not accept and believe what RS say about this, you'll have a hard time editing American politics subjects. We want editors who are realists, who derive their opinions from RS, and are not deceived by fringe sources.
List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. (When Wikipedia uses "conspiracy theory" in a title, that means it is false.)
NPOV means that editors center themselves and their editing right over the position of RS, even when that position is left or right of center. We do not aim for a middle/neutral position. We just aim to be neutral in our editing by not censoring or slanting coverage from what RS say, and they are rarely "middle". You might benefit from reading my essay about how we deal with biased sources and biased content, which are allowed here: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 17:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
References
Kessler_12/30/2018
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).McGranahan
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Skjeseth_2017
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Glasser_8/3/2018
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Davis_Sinnreich_5/14/2020
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).