I don't think that's good enough. We have to take statements about living people very seriously per WP:BLP (please look through that page if you haven't seen it before), and any contentious statements about living people must be sourced or removed. Claiming that someone actively avoided military service is a serious accusation that could harm the subject. The source in the Lieberman article (which you can read here) does claim that he didn't serve in Vietnam despite being of appropriate age but it doesn't allege that he actively avoided military service, so it can't be used to support an allegation of this nature. To avoid synthesis ideally we would need a source that labelled him as a "chickenhawk" or which pointed out a contrast between his lack of military service and advocacy of military action to include him. Hut 8.5 13:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- The article currently defines the term as a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, yet who actively avoided military service when of age (emphasis added). Even if that definition is not accurate (and definitions of the term do seem to vary) including Lieberman in such an article amounts to a claim that he actively avoided military service, and the sentence you added said he "avoided" military service rather than simply not being drafted. Wikipedia has strict policies on biographies of living people and original research, and it isn't acceptable for editors to deduce that someone avoided military service from the fact that they weren't drafted. We need external sources to make that deduction for us. Having said that the sources you've provided on my talk page are a lot better, and I think Lieberman could reasonably be mentioned if they were explicitly cited. I didn't remove Lieberman for any political reasons (I'm not even American), I just want the article to conform to Wikipedia policy. If the article does claim that any other people avoided military service without citing sources then you are entirely within your rights to remove them. Hut 8.5 10:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm a volunteer editor. I am also an administrator, which means I've been entrusted with a few extra buttons to do things like blocking users and deleting pages. Hut 8.5 20:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Rod Dreher 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. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that in to Rod Dreher, 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. Donner60 (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rod Dreher; 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. Grayfell (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Please format your talk per wp:talk page formatting. If you want a reply to your talk, I would suggest using template:reply to. Many editors are busy and don't closely monitor pages. You can notify multiple editors with one reply to.
If nobody agrees, I would suggest finding another article or area to edit. Arguing ad nauseam is best avoided. See wp:stick. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 08:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Additionally, do not refactor other people's comments, as you did here. If you made a mistake, explain it or drop it and move on, but attempting to conceal part of a discussion in this way is confusing at best and disruptive at worst. Other people's comments should only be removed in extreme cases. Follow talk page guidelines. Remember that real people are on the other side of your screen. A small number of us are taking the time to participate in these discussions. Building consensus involves having a conversation. Grayfell (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
|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.