User talk:Katfactz

Welcome!

Hello, Katfactz! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! O3000 (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Katfactz, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Katfactz! 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 GreenMeansGo (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019 are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Braxton C. Womack^{talk to me!} 16:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

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

--Jorm (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You are making controversial changes and being reverted. It is time to open a discussion and talk. Jorm (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent contributions at List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019 appear to show that you are engaged in edit warring; 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 override another editor's contributions. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle. 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. Jorm (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

The dispute you listed at WP:3O has been removed because the discussion involves more than two editors. For more information, please see the instructions at the top of the page. I would suggest that you choose a different dispute resolution process such as WP:DRN or opening an RfC if further discussion does not reach a consensus. These processes are designed to handle disputes involving multiple people. Thanks, --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you aren't getting

You are right that the link is bad, but we have ways to retrieve it through archival records via the Wayback machine. The fact is that you are now edit warring which is disruptive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Katfacts, you posted that warning in the wrong place. There is no need to notify Jorm: they are well aware of 3R. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledgekid, in principle you are right, but I wonder if there is any surplus value to it. It's odd, though, since the NYT cited them not so long ago. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added an archived source for now then, the site could just be down. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In principle he's not right - it's an invalid source that no longer exists. Further, why in the world should we care about a now defunct website's opinion on the matter? What were their credentials? How are they relevant especially since they're now offline? And why is this conversation on my page and not the talk page of the article?

The source does still exist as it has been archived and still retains notability. The quality of the source is open for debate on the article's talk-page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not exist, as it was an ongoing list used as a reference to determine if new shootings could be added and maintained on the page. It is no longer available for a reference and their opinion matters just as much as any other random webpage on the internet. Unless you'd like to go add a good 1,000+ sources, I suggest you stop this ridiculous exercise.Katfactz (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:05, 28 October 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is ridiculous. I removed an invalid source and was ganged up on by two people who tried to undo the edit without any reasoning.Katfactz (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Being correct in your edits, or being "ganged up on"(if true) is not a defense to edit warring. To be unblocked early you will need to describe how to handle editing disputes without resorting to edit warring. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2019 (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.

Someone else will review this of course, but when other editors tried to point out to you that the source was still available through an archived copy ([1]), you continued removing the content anyway ([2]). That's why you're blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I did. He removed other undisputed edits, posted on my personal talk page, brought my name up on some other user's talk page obviously in an effort to help remove my edits, and his reasoning was 'I can access an archive'? The source is no longer a real source - the now defunct webpage was a partisan, biased source to begin with. Furthermore, since the page was being used as a reference to see if two or more sources agreed on a definition for a particular event, it being inaccessible defeats its original purpose.Katfactz (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being "right" is not an excuse for edit warring. When your block expires in (a bit less than) 24 hours you can feel free to discuss this matter on the article's talk page, as you should have in the first place. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did, months ago. And because the three people that disagree with me are the 'majority' right now, it's stayed as it was. Now that a source has been brought offline, their entire narrative is at risk. 2/7 sources is idiotic in the first place. At least have a majority.

That said, THEY initiated the warring. Just because the two of them split the number of undo-edits doesn't make it right. It's sad to see wikipedia succumb to this kind of political debauchery because, what, a former employee disagrees with me? They have no rationale behind their arguments other than the immensely fallacious 'there's no consensus' argument. There's no consensus on their definition, either, and in fact MORE of the sources agree with my definition than theirs, even if you count the biased massshootingtracker which no longer exists.Katfactz (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]