User talk:Edit5001

Post any communication you'd like to have with me here.

Edit5001, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Edit5001! 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 Nick Moyes (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors was changed by Edit5001 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.889209 on 2019-09-23T04:36:54+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Edit5001, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Effects of pornography have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit

Please read wp:minor adding material is not a minor edit.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RS

Please read wp:rs. YouTube is not one.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube is a hosting platform, and some channels qualify as reliable sources just as much as a TV station does, such as "verified" channels. That being said, YouTube is a minefield of self-published twaddle and copyright violations, so caution must be exercised. Elizium23 (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, CBS News' verified channel on YouTube is just as reliable as cbsnews.com is. Elizium23 (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 16:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Abortion in the United States; 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.
This article is under a 1RR restriction - if you do not self-revert, I will request Arbitration Enforcement against you. Your choice. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:NorthBySouthBaranof Go to the Talk page of the article and state what issue you have with any of the information that was added. As I stated, there were previously far larger edits made and no such need for consensus on the Talk Page. Edit5001 (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at White genocide conspiracy theory, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 06:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can't correct a ping

You need to completely start over with a new signed post. Doug Weller talk 08:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1-revert rule.

Hello,

I've been making an honest, good-faith effort to discuss with you on Catholic Church and abortion. I was going to brush off the repeated reversions, but taking a look at your other editing history and repeated warnings on other subjects I worry that this would be counterproductive to a healthy Wikipedia. While I've been using Wikipedia for a very long time, it's mostly been grammar edits and less-attended articles for me, not conflicts like this. I'm open to the possibility that administrators find my activity to be problematic, not yours.

Also, it may be a minute before the report goes through. I'm still figuring this out. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been attempting to discuss these issues with you for nearly 2 weeks now. You do not even attempt to try to reach consensus with me. All you have done from day 1 is undo everything I write and not even attempt to try to agree on some kind of mutual improvement. I've edited perfectly fine with other people for months because they actually listen to my points instead of just throwing everything I write out and then not compromising whatsoever. This is what you have done. Edit5001 (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Triacylglyceride:

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Catholic Church and Abortion. Thank you. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the edit changes with Triacylglyceride

I have been attempting to negotiate with Triacylglyceride for almost 2 weeks on the wording in an article, and not once have they attempted to compromise despite my many attempts to do so. Regardless of what detailed sources or arguments I bring to the table, this person has stonewalled all change to the article I'm attempting to edit. I have been editing for months now and have had plenty of successful cases where I've negotiated with people and reached an outcome we both like. This is the first time I've encountered someone who utterly ignores all of my arguments, doesn't read the sources I add, and simply undoes all my edits in their entirety instead of adjusting them in a way they'd like. Edit5001 (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will also add there have been several instances on the Talk page of them just flat out ceasing to respond to my points, even after I ping them respectfully asking for a reply. Edit5001 (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions relating to abortion

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 abortion. 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.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 16:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: What does this mean exactly? I think I understand the gist of it but just want to be sure. Edit5001 (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was on the Arbitration Committee that sets discretionary sanctions for four years. They can't dictate exactly what behavior is unacceptable, this is going to in part depend upon context for a start. All I can say is that if you follow our guidelines and policies, including not edit-warring or ignoring consensus, it's unlikely that you will be sanctioned. You're going to need to show good faith to other editors (and their behavior if bad cannot of course be an excuse for yours) and it appears you may have to change your behavior. Don't let your passions show in your editing. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Can you give me some advice in how to deal with people who essentially stonewall my edits, even when they're relevant to the page, well sourced, and well explained? In particular in relation to abortion, I've recently encountered people who are obviously partisan, apply blatant double standards, and revert all edits they don't like instead of attempting to work toward a consensus. Edit5001 (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you're on your own there. Of course there is always WP:DRN. You're failing to assume good faith which while it may be tempting rarely helps. Sorry, I'm far too busy to be of more help. I have 19,223 pages on my watchlist (excluding talk pages) and besides being an Administrator I am also a Checkuser aond Oversighter (which means I can suppress edits so that even other Admins can't see them). Doug Weller talk 17:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and pasting

We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. See also Wikipedia:Copy-paste. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to grant license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12178868

Understood, thanks for the heads up. Edit5001 (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement request

There is a discussion regarding your conduct at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Edit5001. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

You have been mentioned here[1]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on Illegal immigration to the United States

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. 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.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also Charlottesville car attack. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Snooganssnoogans: You've been removing valid edits without discussion or consensus. Stop holding yourself to a different standard than you hold others. Edit5001 (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on Catholic Church and abortion

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. 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.

NightHeron (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not resume edit-warring on the page Catholic Church and abortion. According to Wikipedia policy (see WP:BRD and WP:EW), if you make a change in a page that's protected by discretionary sanctions (see WP:ACDS) -- and this includes all pages related to abortion -- and if that change is reverted and disputed on the talk page, you must not reinsert the change without consensus. The status quo ante has priority unless and until consensus is reached to change it. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States#"most Americans oppose illegal immigration". If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. This has got to stop. You've been taken to AE once and got off, but this sort of behaviour is also covered by the discretionary sanctions. Doug Weller talk 11:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Your comment was specifically an argument in favor of a position, having nothing to do with improving the article with reliably sourced information. SummerPhD^v2.0 21:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Elizium23 (talk) wishes you a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year! May this be a time of peace, joy and goodwill towards men.

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:Wikipedia:CONTRIB/Holidays/Christmas1}} to your friends' talk pages.

Elizium23 (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN Page

I appreciate what you are trying to do with the CNN page.....but a small piece of advice: I wouldn't waste too much time arguing with these people. I've tried it myself in the past and it does no good. (See archive#6.) There is already a matter up now for a vote.....but it's not a RFC. Unless you want the same biased people voting (that you are arguing with)...I'd start a RFC (and make your argument clear) to attract some additional people. It may not help, but you will not get anywhere with most of the people who watch this page.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rja13ww33: Thank you for the kind words. Yeah, the absolute refusal by some of these people to even try to compromise is quite bad. Will most likely try an RFC as you said because certain editors obviously are utterly non-cooperative. Edit5001 (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

You have violated 1RR with your most recent edit to Illegal immigration to the United States; I'll give you an opportunity to self-revert. I remind you that a "revert" is An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part. Your most recent edit undoes my reliably-sourced addition to the article and is at least your second revert for the day - this is obviously a prior revert. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Edit5001 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: ). Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!. Curivity (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violation

You have violated WP:1RR by reverting twice in less than 2 hours on Catholic Church and abortion. In your edit summary you falsely state that an editor needs consensus to restore text to the status quo ante. Please self-revert and seek consensus, so that other editors can continue to assume good faith on your part. You have been repeatedly warned by me and other editors about your persistent violations of policy on this and other pages. If this pattern of conduct continues, editors will no longer be able to assume good faith and will have to seek sanctions. NightHeron (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Edit5001 reported by User:Aquillion (Result: ). Thank you. Aquillion (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions for gender-related topics

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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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.

Template:Z33 NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring. I'm especially concerned with the revert to Google's Ideological Echo Chamber — really, an automated edit summary? That is not up to par. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 02:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Edit5001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I gave the reason for the change I made to the Google Ideological Echo Chamber page on the talk page - I simply agreed with another editor's statements on the Talk Page and in their edit summaries. I wasn't aware that I had to make that exactly clear in the edit summary itself so I apologize. Edit5001 (talk) 11:49 am, Today (UTC+9)

Decline reason:

I'm seeing this block as being more justified not from individual episodes but the story they altogether tell. After going past 1rr twice in a week, you gave half-assed lipservice toward the notion of pretending to look like you're not complteely uninterested in vaguely playing at feigned participation in a discussion before reverting someone who previously got you blocked for edit warring. It suggests that either you don't understand how to not edit war, or you don't care because you've got to "win" against NorthBySouthBaranof. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

That isn't much of a talk page comment, either. It gives the appearance that you're following NorthBySouthBaranof. El_C 02:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: So just to be clear here, if two people are involved in edits on one page, and then one undoes the edit of the other on another page without much of a comment, that is grounds for a block? Because this has happened to myself several times. Edit5001 (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. This a block for edit warring in multiple articles. That automated edit summary just caught my eye. And again, that terse I agree comment on the article talk page is not much of an explanation, either. Anyway, as mentioned, it looks like you were following NorthBySouthBaranof, which is hounding. El_C 03:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this brief break to examine your efforts to add your own world view into controversial articles and focus on future efforts to gain consensus on talk pages before adding material in mainspace that you must know will be at odds with the views of other editors. O3000 (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: It's tiresome when my concerns/proposals (and the concerns/proposals of those who agree with my changes) are totally ignored and not a single thing in an article changes in over a week of discussion and several editors all voicing the same concerns. Edit5001 (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, it's almost as if those who disagree with your ideas have policy based reasons that your proposals ignore or otherwise fail to take into account, no matter how much you play nice with others or try to interpret policy in ways to support your claims. Has anyone pointed out that behavior to you before? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: Well the "policy based" excuse is often absurd because I can show you at least two examples off the top of my head of people I've "edit warred" with enforcing blatant, obvious double standards. The most obvious being editors telling me Fox can't be cited as criticism of CNN due to being a direct competitor, while they don't lift a finger when CNN is being cited to criticize Fox, despite both being listed as reliable sources as per Wikipedia's standards. Edit5001 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is misleading on two fronts. The Fox article you wished to use in our CNN article was based on Project Veritas, a famously poor source. As for our Fox article, I suggested the CNN cite be removed. O3000 (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does a reliable source become invalid based on the information they're reporting on, that has not been disproven, by the way? This is a classic case of "I disagree with the source, so I remove it". And great, you suggested that CNN should be removed, but you didn't aggressively edit the page to enforce it the way you did where I was. As we speak, that citation is still there in the page.Edit5001 (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: I'm a bit upset you think I haven't been open to discussion when I've spent weeks talking on Talk pages with people whose idea of editing Wikipedia is undoing every single addition people make to an article instead of actually editing parts they think should be edited. I've had several edits I've done (that took hours of time and research) be reverted in the exact same way as what I did here, with little explanation - in fact, that's why I assumed editing in this way was allowed. Edit5001 (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer that I had given the decline reason "I agree with El_C's block"...? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask this while I have your attention; are NorthbySouthBaronof's actions here of undoing over an hour of my editing and research with no feedback given on the Talk page (and only "I disagree, get consensus" given as the change summary) acceptable? Shouldn't people edit the parts of pages they want to see changed, instead of undoing entire well researched additions that people worked hard on? Edit5001 (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Fix it instead of reverting' is not a thing. 'Fix it if possible instead of reverting' is a common suggestion. Status quo ante is generally favored until consensus for contentious changes are gained.

Avoid saying "I worked hard on this!" It comes across as possessive, especially when you're bringing up the kind of edits that multiple

And bringing up other people's actions during your unblock appeal is almost always useless so don't bother with "but what about them?" arguments. Especially because it shows that you're not listening to people, because this discussion covers a variety of reasons why NBSB would later revert you. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: Well pardon me if I lose patience when certain people are obviously not interested in accepting my, or anyone else's, concerns on pages they're involved in. This person literally told me "Go back to Europe" on one Talk page (Shouldn't that be a blockable offense?). Shows you the level of discussion some of these people are willing to engage in. Also, if you look at the discussion you linked, the person stopped responding to me outright rather than attempting to reach any consensus. I'm just giving you a bit more context than what you've seen here. Edit5001 (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This person literally told me "Go back to Europe" on one Talk page. That's quite out of context and I'd suggest you strike it. I'd explain how it was out of context -- but that would be setting a trap as you need to be careful while blocked. O3000 (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't out of context. He essentially said "Go back to Europe if you don't like the US's immigration policy", which was a complete non-sequitur to what I said at the time on top of being downright insulting/childish. Frankly, I wish I had reported it at the time. Edit5001 (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And nothing would have happened. You're being hyper sensitive to any opposition, but when you display similar behavior to others (like repeating the same dismissed reasons for weeks and weeks without paying any attention to why you're wrong), you don't see that as an issue, no matter how many times it's pointed out for you. It's tendentious and hypocritical. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If someone had told a black editor "Go back to Africa" you'd be apoplectic and would've blocked them that day without question. Furthermore, in cases where I've been wrong, I have backed down - by contrast, the arguments that have lasted for weeks are the ones where I'm right and am dealing with someone not willing to budge even an inch in the face of facts that contradict their worldview. Edit5001 (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to talk yourself into a longer block. O3000 (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, and somewhat entertaining to watch. --JBL (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was this thing called the Atlantic slave trade, heard of it? And you didn't back down at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory for a *LONG* time, despite being shown repeatedly how you were wrong in a way that only enables racists (which you didn't seem to care about at all!). Are you claiming that you were right there, or are you admitting that it takes you weeks to realize when you're wrong? Which is it? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does the Atlantic Slave Trade somehow justify racist remarks in any direction? Also, you woefully mischaracterize the talk on the White genocide talk page. A long time? I opened the RFC on whether demographic change should be described in the article on December 13th and my last statement was on the 17th. That's four days. Not "weeks". The discussion on the 4th, prior to that, was about certain biased sources being used in the article, not about new sources about demographic change should be added. Edit5001 (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, Ian.thomson, Just before this editor got blocked he went to editwar in Ilhan Omar article, while there is an on-going RfC. He went and readded the disputed content. I also feel this editor is WP:Hounding Objective3000 and NorthBySouthBaranof.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was just before the block, and an edit may have been retaliatory, but I wouldn't say there was enough evidence for hounding. However, they did re-add challenged text under discussion and exhibit clear WP:IDHT behavior and a lack of understanding/acceptance of our guidelines -- at the very least. O3000 (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Objective3000, yea, sorry. I just saw the revert in Ilhan Omar's article and thought it was new. I felt that this editor is hounding just when he voted in the RfC. The reason he gave was not policy-based and at that time you were having an argument with him in another place and with another editor in Ilhan Omar's article and he suddenly went to Ilhan Omar article voted and made a revert.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A single edit isn't an edit war. I had also been watching the dispute on that article for some time and it's obvious the tactics people like yourself are using to attempt to get around a previous RFC that settled the issue you're now trying to change. Wikieditor19920 really laid out the issues with it all on that page and I 100% agree with him. Edit5001 (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is starting to veer away from what constitutes an acceptable usage of a user talk page while that user is blocked. Edit5001, please limit usage of this talk page while blocked to an unblock appeal only (you may file an additional one if you so desire). Everyone else (with the exception of the admin who closed the unblock appeal), this discussion has become problematic. Anyway, it is inappropriate for Edit5001 to continue to respond to the various threads in this section — that means it is inappropriate for others to contribute to these, as well. You all may do so soon, once Edit5001's block expires. Thanks. El_C 17:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on Illegal immigration to the United States

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. 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.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as your block for edit-warring ended, you immediately go on to violate WP:BRD and restore newly added content that has been challenged by other editors? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What content? You didn't challenge any of the things I added on the Talk page prior to the edit.

You added content[2]. I removed it.[3] You then immediately restored it.[4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't just remove what I added, you removed entire sections without even properly justifying the removal of my additions, let alone the entire sections. Edit5001 (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, you restored what you personally just added. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because you gave no justification for removing what I added. Edit5001 (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

Your recent edit to Illegal immigration in the United States constitutes a second revert within 24 hours. First and second. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

You may not selectively WP:CANVASS editors you consider likely to agree with your POV. If you do this again you may be blocked from editing. Guy (help!) 10:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit5001 asks a fellow editor to help him edit-war.[5]. The editor immediately obliges[6]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm not sure we can blame MaximumIdeas much. But as for Edit5001's blatant canvassing, their only excuse is being a newish editor. If it wasn't for that, I'd be tempted to block them for disruptive editing right now. Edit5001, if you're at all uncertain about the distinction between calling on somebody you expect to agree with you, versus appropriate notification of a wider range of informed editors, please read WP:CANVASSING carefully. Bishonen | talk 15:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Snooganssnoogans: This isn't an "edit war", it's a content dispute that you and another person are aggressively attempting to push through without consensus from the many other people involved in the page and which several of us have now objected to. Edit5001 (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]