CobaltWriter
Vandalism
editThe header "Alleged Anti White Bigorty" is appropriate as the interpretation of the subjects quotations are subjective. Your interpretation isn't sufficient to remove "Alleged" from the section header. The only contributions you have made to wikipedia have been made today as vandalism to this page. You obviously have a grudge against this living subject.
wikipedia is clear, that even when sourced, "alleged" is appropriate in the bio:
"Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred."
"Alleged anti white bigotry" as accused by some is appropriate. Please stop vandalizing the page. Mjones3927 (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- The original edit that you reversed without giving a reason was accurate and cited. This is not an "accusation." It is a publicly viewable message published by Talbert Swan that meets dictionary definitions of Bigotry. My reversal of your edit was objectively correct. Your accusations are unfounded and false. CobaltWriter (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- How does it meet the dictionary definition of bigotry? Again, subjective. Your INTERPRETATION of the quotation meets the dictionary definition. Whether "alleged" should be used was already argued between users and the decision was made to use "Alleged." Why does your interpretation trump that? You are not being objective when you are labeling the subject as an anti white bigot. That is very subjective. Alleged is appropriate as previously determined. My accusations of your agenda are reasonable as your only edits on wiki has been regarding this one subject, who has many critics that consistently vandalize the page. Mjones3927 (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Also worth noting: You have several previous edit wars on the same page with other users, and you had several drafts of the page rejected because they were deemed advertisements by the admins. One of us does have a personal connection with the subject here, but it's clearly not me. CobaltWriter (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Worth noting, the rejection of the page was a mistake because the admin thought references to masslive.com was advertisements of the subject when it is, in fact, a regional, credible, newspaper source. Once this was realized, the page was approved. You have an obvious personal vendatta and agenda against the subject, which is evidenced by the fact that you have no previous contributions and the only contributions you have are to vandalize this page and to label the subject as an anti white bigot. This is typical vandalism this page is subjected to. Mjones3927 (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- You're once again making unfounded accusations and harassing me for no reason. I have not vandalized anything, I have only made 2 edits, both of which were accurate. You, on the other hand, have done this multiple times with multiple users. You're clearly the aggressor here. Kindly leave. CobaltWriter (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- The edit was unnecessary, and, had you read the talk page you would note that whether or not "alleged" should be used was already discussed and compromised. You obviously have an agenda. Mjones3927 (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- That was not discussed in the talk page, but there are several people calling you to discuss why you're vandalizing the page that you haven't answered. CobaltWriter (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- The edit was unnecessary, and, had you read the talk page you would note that whether or not "alleged" should be used was already discussed and compromised. You obviously have an agenda. Mjones3927 (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- You're once again making unfounded accusations and harassing me for no reason. I have not vandalized anything, I have only made 2 edits, both of which were accurate. You, on the other hand, have done this multiple times with multiple users. You're clearly the aggressor here. Kindly leave. CobaltWriter (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Worth noting, the rejection of the page was a mistake because the admin thought references to masslive.com was advertisements of the subject when it is, in fact, a regional, credible, newspaper source. Once this was realized, the page was approved. You have an obvious personal vendatta and agenda against the subject, which is evidenced by the fact that you have no previous contributions and the only contributions you have are to vandalize this page and to label the subject as an anti white bigot. This is typical vandalism this page is subjected to. Mjones3927 (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
January 2023
edit
Hi CobaltWriter! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Talbert W. Swan II several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Talbert W. Swan II, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 21:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wouldn't have to send me this if the other user had been properly blocked the first time he harassed other users, which he's done several times before. I'm just leaving the platform since the admins won't do anything about abusers. Have a good one though. CobaltWriter (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)