User talk:Skere789

Welcome!

Hello Skere789! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, 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 using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments 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 • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The "perfect" article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Discretionary sanctions 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.

O3000 (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Template:Z33[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly..Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also going to point out how objecting to material because it is sourced than objecting to it because it is unsourced (when the sources are removed) is disingenuous (and it was sourced, in the body).Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response

To misrepresent the edit is disingenuous.

My edit summary: "Removed bias in intro. By definition all social media sites offer open membership, and there are sources to describe the existence of far-right and far-left accounts in all social media sites. Use the intro to describe the site's technical capabilities and policy."
Your response: "So? RS have noted it so should we." I responded to point out that was irrelevant for the intro.
You responded: "OK, leave out the sources.". This ignores the point.

I never removed the controversial content in Parler, I moved it to the body. A controversial allegation does not belong as the second sentence of an intro. To insist otherwise suggests an editor is not an editor, but an activist. Skere789 (talk) 09:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So now you are just being dishonest, here is your edit summery [[1]] "The purpose of the intro is NOT to include all RS references.", So you object to the sources in the lede. then this [[2]] "Removing unsourced material." you removed it because it is unsourced (which by the way it was not, the sources are all in the body). Also none of your reverts of me move anything, you just remove text.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I am not lying, contrary to your accusation:

I have added links above to support the quoted statements
This is the edit when I moved that content into the body.

You may apologize by making a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation, and by committing to the Five Pillars. Skere789 (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or I can stand by my accusation (and I do), I am now warning you, if you do anything like this again I will report you.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like what "again"? The part where I proved with evidence I was telling the truth? Or the part where I point out that to defend irrational edits - and then defend them with aggression and hostility - constitutes advocacy vs. editing, in violation Wikipedia rules? AGAIN, I encourage you to review the Five Pillars. Skere789 (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]