Atrix20

Edit warring at The Daily Caller

Your recent editing history at The Daily Caller 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. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I hope that you don't continue to push your deletion. It is not a violation of NPOV to include mention in the lead of important content in the body of the article. It would be a violation of WP:LEAD and NPOV to fail to do so. The proper mention has been restored by User:Snooganssnoogans. Please don't edit war over it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I will continue to push it; the material is already in the body, and the other similar outlets that have also had things deemed objectionable don't have their ledes marked by them. Why the DC? Because it's a non-progressive outlet? You do kind of have Obama on your user page, thus you don't have a lack of bias.Atrix20 (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Drop the personal attack. Follow WP:LEAD. Your WP:OTHERTHINGS argument doesn't help you. If other articles are as infamous as DC for publishing false and misleading information (that has been widely debunked), and their articles deal with that in the body, then maybe it should be mentioned in their leads. Don't allow their lack to degrade the DC article. All sources make mistakes, but with DC and many other extreme right- and left-wing sources, such "mistakes" are a feature and not a bug. It is part of their agenda, facts-be-damned. That's the danger of extremism.

Use of DC as a source is a related topic I'll bring up here. DC is a strange bird for a right-wing source, because it does occasionally publish some facts that go against their right-wing agenda (and that's why I check them out), but, in spite of that, our duty is to then find that content in RS and use them as sources, never DC as the source.

BTW, if you ever see me using extreme or deprecated left-wing sources, please notify me. I'll appreciate it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Vandalistic edit warring deletions at The Daily Caller

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The Daily Caller, you may be blocked from editing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

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) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Standard notice regarding edits to articles related to gun rights and control

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 governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. 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. Mathglot (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)