Fctchckr22
April 2020
edit
Hello, I'm Hb1290. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Josh Mandel. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hb1290 (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Josh Mandel. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. Woerich (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Josh Mandel 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. Woerich (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Removing factually incorrect information is not a war. Fctchckr22 (talk) 04:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
These statements and articles that I removed are factually incorrect and their source are linked to the Cleveland Plain Dealer which Sherrod Browns wife worked for and repeatedly published hit pieces Fctchckr22 (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
edit
An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2605:A601:AA66:6300:8594:1C85:7759:27CE, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Hb1290 (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I have one account. Fctchckr22 (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.