Editorman232
June 2019
edit
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Deep state in the United States, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Alert
edit
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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Edit warring at Deep state in the United States
edit
Your recent editing history at Deep state in the United States 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. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
March 2020
edit
You currently appear to be 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. 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.
Pllease be aware that Breitbart News is specifically under the one-revert rule due to past disruptive behavior. Do not restore your changes without consensus. Grayfell (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (help!) 22:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)I'm not engaged in an edit war. I made inappropriate headed that followed all of the proper citations and someone else reverted it with the false accusation that there was no edit summary. I absolutely typed in and it's every into it. so I went back and I re-added the information. this time making sure to add an edit summary. as that was the (alleged) complaint by the previous undo.
if you can further explain what the issues are with the added information that would be extremely helpful. because I did fix the alleged missing edit summary from the last undo (that history shows i had added) Editorman232 (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- an appropriate. not "inappropriate" Editorman232 (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe it's disrupted edits. I believe it's adding relevant historical information and events with citations that follow all of the rules. and I fixed the allegation that I did not add and edit summary. which I did. and then double checked the second time.
but this user that I have never seen before decided to revert those changes with a superfluous explanation that is easily disproven. I don't like to point fingers but being that this is an article about Breitbart it can't be discounted that politics might play a role in someone's decision to remove information such as the harvard MIT study that found Breitbart to not be an alt right platform.
specifically if the reason given was dubious at best.
further i have used the talk page but those go largely ignored. Editorman232 (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Editorman232 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm not engaged in an edit war. I made inappropriate headed that followed all of the proper citations and someone else reverted it with the false accusation that there was no edit summary. I absolutely typed in and it's every into it. so I went back and I re-added the information. this time making sure to add an edit summary. as that was the (alleged) complaint by the previous undo. if you can further explain what the issues are with the added information that would be extremely helpful. because I did fix the alleged missing edit summary from the last undo (that history shows i had added) Editorman232 (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You aren't blocked for edit-warring, you are blocked for disruptive editing. Yamla (talk) 10:17, 10 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.
October 2020
edit
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Donald Trump Jr.. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Transcendental (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
They are not unconstructive. Please explain in detail what was wrong with them Editorman232 (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)