FollowTheSources

May 2020

Hello, I'm Nithin. I noticed that in this edit to Union of Latin American Parties, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Nithin^talk 19:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, but I did explain why in the edit comment: "with all due respect, this is too much material". The previous change added large amounts of text directly from the source, which seemed excessive to me.

Let's discuss it further on the talk page. FollowTheSources (talk)

Planet of the Humans

That's fine, but in future if you find a dead link or can't get it to work, instead of deleting the entire passage -- if that's the only problem -- use a note like "{{deadlink}}" or "{{citation needed}}" (which gives you this sort of thing: }, add a hidden note, or ask on the Talk page.

But there are still problems with the passage, from its phrasing (how, exactly, does a website "change its mind"?) and its content (what -- if that's possible -- is it changing its mind about?). The phrasing makes it sound as if they've changed their opinion regarding the problems with the film, and it's pretty clear they haven't: their concerns are with perhaps repressing discussion and about "censorship" -- which it wouldn't be, but that's not Wikipedia's problem to fix. Bluntly, the original phrasing of this addition reads like an attempt to soft-pedal the original criticism and make it sound as if the site owners had been convinced by the filmmaker responses. --Calton | Talk 06:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Every version is a draft, so feel free to improve upon it. FollowTheSources (talk) 06:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

ALTACCN

Hello. Are you new to Wikipedia, or is this an alternate account? If the latter is the case, it should be disclosed per WP:ALTACCN. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This is my only account. I have previously edited without an account, but found it to be inconvenient. FollowTheSources (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

FollowTheSources, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi FollowTheSources! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

RedWarn

Hello! I noticed you've been reverting vandalism recently and wondered if you'd like to help beta test my new editing tool, RedWarn, designed for the fastest reverts in the west (yee-haw!)

Features include:

• Patrol - See the latest changes on at all times
• Quick rollback - revert and warn users in one click
• Rollback previews - see exactly what action is going to
• Inspector - trace the source of unsigned talk page comments or other edits
• Quick warnings - no need to open up a new tab or load a different page to warn a user - as soon as you rollback, you get a menu to submit a notice
• Modern, easy to use design - Unlike Twinkle, RedWarn does not have tonnes side menus and a complicated interface.
• Alert on Change - get a push notification when a page is changed (good for persistent vandalism/disruptive editing)
• Frequent updates, feature additions and bug fixes based on your feedback!

Please remember that this is still a beta, but if you're interested, check out how to install it at WP:REDWARN, otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your page.

Ed6767 (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm new to this and not comfortable using a tool that, as your link says, could get me blocked if I do it wrong. FollowTheSources (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

FollowTheSources, being banned while using anti-vandalism tools is very rare. Those messages are mainly for vandals who want to abuse tools such as mine. If you make a mistake, it is likely you won't be banned as you did it in good faith - but that's okay, feel free to try whenever you feel ready. If you don't want to use the anti-vandal features, there are some features you may find useful, such as being able to right-click on user links to access actions such as their edit count, contributions, user page and talk page, along with "quick welcome" which places a welcome message on somebodies page. Ed6767 (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take another look at it as time permits. FollowTheSources (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

FollowTheSources, thanks. Also, don't forget to use {{Reply to|username}} so we get pinged when you reply Ed6767 (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ed6767: Thanks! FollowTheSources (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Pings can't be fixed

You need to start and sign a new post. Doug Weller talk 12:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Thanks for explaining. FollowTheSources (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Patriot Prayer

My edits were made after a lengthy discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive304#Patriot_Prayer. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC) I saw that. I also saw this post:

When NBC News directly and factually describes someone as "the leader of a far-right group," The Guardian describes someone as a "far-right leader," KOIN describes someone as "the leader of the far-right group Patriot Prayer," and the Los Angeles Times describes someone as a "far-right activist," it is not in any way a BLP violation to describe either that person or that group as far-right. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that speaks for itself, in a way that leaves no room for rebuttal. FollowTheSources (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Scroll down to the line of conversation by Masem. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I did, and what I saw is that a group of people strongly agreed with NorthBysouthBaranof and never changed their minds. Instead, Masem made a proposal and none of them supported it. FollowTheSources (talk) 03:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

That was not an adequate review of the two lines of discussion. Who were those editors that strongly agreed with NBB? I only saw JzG. Everyone else demanded some sort of attribution. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's not discuss this in three places: I opened up a section on the article's talk page. FollowTheSources (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

1RR violation

Your recent editing history at Joe Biden sexual assault allegation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 being blocked from editing—especially, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please revert yourself immediately and ensure you have made only 1 reversion in the prior 24 hours. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the history, I reverted two different changes. I believe that is in line with the 1RR restriction. I have also opened discussions about both.

If the revert of the second change was a violation, then I will self-revert, but again, that's not my understanding of what these sanctions entail. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem. It's easy to run afoul of these rules and it makes editing difficult. I tend to just avoid these pages because I don't want to accidentally run into a sanction for misunderstanding or misapplying a rule. My understanding is that is one revert of any material on the entire page, and particularly this means a complete revert as you have done twice in the past 24 hours. You are actually at 3 reverts for the day by my count but your last one was reverted by someone else because I believe that deletion would count as reversion of something that was added today. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I reverted myself, but please below. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor, help me out here.

• This is the change that included the stuff about Bernie and Putin. [1]
• This is a partial revert that removed Putin. [2]
• This is a partial revert that removed Bernie. [3]

Your template adds: "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. "

So, based on this, it looks to me as though User:Darryl Kerrigan violated 1RR. If I understand correctly, reverting 1RR violations is acceptable. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll look into it and see if that user should be templated about the 1RR. The only exemptions from RR are:

• Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
• Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
• Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users.
• Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
• Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Files for discussion noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
• Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under U.S. law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
• Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

Otherwise it is just more edit warring to revert edit warring (particularly a RR violation). The thing to do is allow the user the opportunity to revert themselves and if not, report it for administrator action. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes I believe you are correct, I will template Darryl Kerrigan. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. Otherwise multiple reverts (e.g. deletion of recently added material) count separately. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. This is pretty confusing, to be frank. I didn't think I was violating 1RR and wouldn't have reverted if I did think so. Moreover, it is clear from their own statements that they expected me to revert that second deletion, so I feel baited.

In any case, rather than trying to dance on the fuzzy line, I've returned to discussing the issue on the talk page. I think we'll be able to come up with a compromise that is consistent with the goals of this encyclopedia. FollowTheSources (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see what you meant about baiting. Believing it would be restored isn't quite baiting to my mind. Yes, the rules can be very confusing, and again, I tend to avoid articles like this because it would be easy to get blocked for a variety of reasons at the discretion of an administrator. Once your account accumulates blocks I think that tends to be counted against you in the future. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that I misunderstood, but they admitted that, when they deleted the second time, they "anticipate[d that] it will almost immediately be added back in" by me. Given that they knew we were under 1RR, this looks like a (successful) attempt to get me to cross the line. FollowTheSources (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I also want to thank you for your advice about accumulating blocks. A quick Googling strongly confirms it, and also points out that there is a huge boomerang risk in reporting anyone for anything ever. Very strange! FollowTheSources (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

So, I tried to restore two well-supported sections, and that was a sanctions violation. Someone deletes all of the biographical information, but apparently that's just fine. Conclusion: Wikipedia is broken. FollowTheSources (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Alert

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.

– bradv🍁 19:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, the 1RR discussion above made that painfully clear. But thanks for the formal notification, even if it does come a bit late. :-) FollowTheSources (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

For good measure

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.

Can't hurt, right? --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, it didn't hurt, but I don't see how it helped, either. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ FollowTheSources (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• ( ².O.^Boxing 10:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Guy (help!) 19:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk page access disabled. Any appeal can be directed via the Unblock Ticket Request System. El_C 23:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)