Hello, WinstonSmith01984, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Sm8900 ( talk) 16:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Sm8900 ( talk) 16:40, 12 March 2020 (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 governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. 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.
O3000 ( talk) 15:01, 14 March 2020 (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 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.
O3000 ( talk) 15:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Note once you have been undone (reverted) it is down to you to make a case at talk page, not to edit war. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Also I suggest you read wp:vandal. What was done was not vandalism, and making unfounded accusation is against the rules. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
You also need to read wp:brd, wp:revert and wp:editwar. Once someone reverts you you are not supposed to revert them until you have consensus. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at National Rifle Association 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Diannaa ( talk) 15:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Slatersteven (
talk)
15:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. El_C 15:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
WinstonSmith01984 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Requesting unblock from NRA article to engage in Talk and gain consensus. I disagree with the block because I have actually tried to engage constructively on the talk page but only encountered belligerence. Was unaware of any 3 edit limit, sorry. No reasonable explanation was provided for removal of the content I added and it certainly looked like vandalism, or at the very least, disruptive editing by users who disagreed with my addition and were themselves unwilling to engage in the talk page until I added it. WinstonSmith01984 ( talk) 15:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are only blocked from the article, and you haven't addressed your behavior - unblock requests blaming others will not be considered. Acroterion (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2020 (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.
Please read wp:npa, please stop now. You have had one block already because you did not listen (and yes you were told about edit warring before your 4 revert). Constrictive engagement is not attacking other users. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.(I added the emphasis because it is counter to your assumption) Schazjmd (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I think an important point here if you want to consider Hitchens's razor is that when you make a change to the an article, you are making a claim that your change is an improvement to the article. If you are not claiming your change is an improvement to the article, you should not be making your change. So if you cannot provide evidence that your change is an improvement, then your claim that it's an improvement can be dismissed, and we can leave things as is.
I'd also note that onus was mentioned to you on the article talk page at 15:28, 14 March 2020 by User:PackMecEng so it's not the first time this was brought up.
Frankly though, on a person level I often find it better just to put aside who the onus should be on when we are the early stage of discussion. Someone needs to start off the discussion by actually explaining something be it the person who wants to make the change explaining why they feel it is an improvement, or the person opposing the change feeling it's not an improvement. When I looked at the earlier talk page discussion, I saw no real explanation from you why you felt your change was an improvement, all I saw was you insisting that other editors were wrong to revert you, vandals, revisionists etc.
That sort of stuff is almost never helpful on an article talk page. If you do have concerns over an editor's behaviour you should generally take it up directly with the editor and not discuss it on the article talk page. While saying your material was UNDUE is to some extent an explanation why your change was not an improvement, I do agree more explanation would have been helpful. But again whatever they said, you still should have explained why your change was an improvement.
Ultimately 2 sides insisting the other side needs to start the discussion is not going to achieve anything. Someone needs to actually do it. And that means someone actually explaining in some detail why they feel the change is or is not an improvement. Whichever side your on, it might as well be you to start that discussion. Onus and other issues means there are some cases where maybe it's reasonable to wait for the other 'side' to start but IMO it's best to treat these cases as rare unless you're sure few people familiar with our norms are likely to disagree. That is the point I tried to make earlier, unfortunately it doesn't seem like it was understood.
BTW, although I have almost no involvement in the gun control area, I recognise a bunch of the names of the people you got in dispute with, and I strongly suspect they're very often in disagreement with each other on proposed changes to the article. One of them, I don't think is generally involved in the area, they were probably draw to the dispute by the editwarring and noticeboards. (Actually this could have been me since I saw your last revert except I didn't revert you since I was hoping you'd do so before you were blocked.)
That's one reason why your unsubstantiated claims of bias are silly and you need to assume good faith about other editors motivations. More generally, highly contentious articles like the NRA one tend to have plenty of different editors with different viewpoints, so it's quite likely you will find some editors agreeing with you unless your proposed change is very far from our policies and guidelines. (Although getting back to my earlier point, it's hard for people to be agreeing to something, when there has been no explanation for the change.)
Nil Einne ( talk) 04:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Third opinion (3O) is a means to request an outside opinion in a content or sourcing disagreement between two editors". This tells you what the name of the page already tells you. It is a place to request a third opinion. If there are already more than 2 people in the discussion, as there is when there are about 5 people or more already taking part in the discussion, you cannot request a third opinion since there is already a third opinion. 3O is therefore not a suitable form of dispute resolution. I'd note that while using some form of "outside" dispute resolution can be beneficial, it also often shouldn't be necessary. Simply continuing discussion on the article talk page can often result in resolution especially when there are multiple editors. Nil Einne ( talk) 15:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Johnuniq (
talk)
02:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)The discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POV-based removal of content ( permalink) shows a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Collaboration is required here, not endless debating with an inability to hear the views of several experienced editors. An indefinite block is not forever—it can be lifted once an understanding of the situation is shown, provided there is a plan to avoid future problems. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
WinstonSmith01984 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I pledge to engage constructively with other editors, assume good faith in any instance of dispute, and rescind from the allegations of vandalism I made.
I will endeavour to better understand the policies and procedures of Wikipedia, and admit I could have done a (much) better job of raising my WP:CRUSH suspicion.
Please indicate if any other behaviour of mine needs addressing to qualify for unblocking.
Best regards.
Decline reason:
After a thought period longer than 8 hours, probably rather a few months ( standard offer: 6 months), if you create an unblock request, please make sure that it directly addresses what led to the block, concisely and without empty phrases. In your request, please provide multiple specific examples for edits you would make when unblocked. Ideally, agree to a binding topic ban for the areas of earlier conflicts.
Thank you very much and best regards,
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
03:21, 3 April 2020 (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.
Hello, WinstonSmith01984, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Sm8900 ( talk) 16:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Sm8900 ( talk) 16:40, 12 March 2020 (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 governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. 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.
O3000 ( talk) 15:01, 14 March 2020 (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 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.
O3000 ( talk) 15:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Note once you have been undone (reverted) it is down to you to make a case at talk page, not to edit war. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Also I suggest you read wp:vandal. What was done was not vandalism, and making unfounded accusation is against the rules. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
You also need to read wp:brd, wp:revert and wp:editwar. Once someone reverts you you are not supposed to revert them until you have consensus. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at National Rifle Association 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Diannaa ( talk) 15:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Slatersteven (
talk)
15:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. El_C 15:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
WinstonSmith01984 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Requesting unblock from NRA article to engage in Talk and gain consensus. I disagree with the block because I have actually tried to engage constructively on the talk page but only encountered belligerence. Was unaware of any 3 edit limit, sorry. No reasonable explanation was provided for removal of the content I added and it certainly looked like vandalism, or at the very least, disruptive editing by users who disagreed with my addition and were themselves unwilling to engage in the talk page until I added it. WinstonSmith01984 ( talk) 15:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are only blocked from the article, and you haven't addressed your behavior - unblock requests blaming others will not be considered. Acroterion (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2020 (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.
Please read wp:npa, please stop now. You have had one block already because you did not listen (and yes you were told about edit warring before your 4 revert). Constrictive engagement is not attacking other users. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.(I added the emphasis because it is counter to your assumption) Schazjmd (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I think an important point here if you want to consider Hitchens's razor is that when you make a change to the an article, you are making a claim that your change is an improvement to the article. If you are not claiming your change is an improvement to the article, you should not be making your change. So if you cannot provide evidence that your change is an improvement, then your claim that it's an improvement can be dismissed, and we can leave things as is.
I'd also note that onus was mentioned to you on the article talk page at 15:28, 14 March 2020 by User:PackMecEng so it's not the first time this was brought up.
Frankly though, on a person level I often find it better just to put aside who the onus should be on when we are the early stage of discussion. Someone needs to start off the discussion by actually explaining something be it the person who wants to make the change explaining why they feel it is an improvement, or the person opposing the change feeling it's not an improvement. When I looked at the earlier talk page discussion, I saw no real explanation from you why you felt your change was an improvement, all I saw was you insisting that other editors were wrong to revert you, vandals, revisionists etc.
That sort of stuff is almost never helpful on an article talk page. If you do have concerns over an editor's behaviour you should generally take it up directly with the editor and not discuss it on the article talk page. While saying your material was UNDUE is to some extent an explanation why your change was not an improvement, I do agree more explanation would have been helpful. But again whatever they said, you still should have explained why your change was an improvement.
Ultimately 2 sides insisting the other side needs to start the discussion is not going to achieve anything. Someone needs to actually do it. And that means someone actually explaining in some detail why they feel the change is or is not an improvement. Whichever side your on, it might as well be you to start that discussion. Onus and other issues means there are some cases where maybe it's reasonable to wait for the other 'side' to start but IMO it's best to treat these cases as rare unless you're sure few people familiar with our norms are likely to disagree. That is the point I tried to make earlier, unfortunately it doesn't seem like it was understood.
BTW, although I have almost no involvement in the gun control area, I recognise a bunch of the names of the people you got in dispute with, and I strongly suspect they're very often in disagreement with each other on proposed changes to the article. One of them, I don't think is generally involved in the area, they were probably draw to the dispute by the editwarring and noticeboards. (Actually this could have been me since I saw your last revert except I didn't revert you since I was hoping you'd do so before you were blocked.)
That's one reason why your unsubstantiated claims of bias are silly and you need to assume good faith about other editors motivations. More generally, highly contentious articles like the NRA one tend to have plenty of different editors with different viewpoints, so it's quite likely you will find some editors agreeing with you unless your proposed change is very far from our policies and guidelines. (Although getting back to my earlier point, it's hard for people to be agreeing to something, when there has been no explanation for the change.)
Nil Einne ( talk) 04:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Third opinion (3O) is a means to request an outside opinion in a content or sourcing disagreement between two editors". This tells you what the name of the page already tells you. It is a place to request a third opinion. If there are already more than 2 people in the discussion, as there is when there are about 5 people or more already taking part in the discussion, you cannot request a third opinion since there is already a third opinion. 3O is therefore not a suitable form of dispute resolution. I'd note that while using some form of "outside" dispute resolution can be beneficial, it also often shouldn't be necessary. Simply continuing discussion on the article talk page can often result in resolution especially when there are multiple editors. Nil Einne ( talk) 15:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Johnuniq (
talk)
02:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)The discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POV-based removal of content ( permalink) shows a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Collaboration is required here, not endless debating with an inability to hear the views of several experienced editors. An indefinite block is not forever—it can be lifted once an understanding of the situation is shown, provided there is a plan to avoid future problems. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
WinstonSmith01984 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I pledge to engage constructively with other editors, assume good faith in any instance of dispute, and rescind from the allegations of vandalism I made.
I will endeavour to better understand the policies and procedures of Wikipedia, and admit I could have done a (much) better job of raising my WP:CRUSH suspicion.
Please indicate if any other behaviour of mine needs addressing to qualify for unblocking.
Best regards.
Decline reason:
After a thought period longer than 8 hours, probably rather a few months ( standard offer: 6 months), if you create an unblock request, please make sure that it directly addresses what led to the block, concisely and without empty phrases. In your request, please provide multiple specific examples for edits you would make when unblocked. Ideally, agree to a binding topic ban for the areas of earlier conflicts.
Thank you very much and best regards,
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
03:21, 3 April 2020 (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.