User talk:96.58.21.233

February 2018

Hello, I'm Home Lander. I noticed that in this edit to The Silent Scream, 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. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Their edit summary wasn't a sufficient explanation for the content removal? ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@ShuffleboardJerk: The above is a boilerplate notice from Huggle. And regardless, it wasn't sufficient, as it removed content that was reliably sourced. Home Lander (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Home Lander: I know, I saw the Huggle tag. You chose the wrong template. And the information that was deleted is repeated later in the article. So this ip isn't deleting anything, just changing when that information first shows up. ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@ShuffleboardJerk: I chose the option for removal of content. Unfortunately "boilerplate" warnings aren't customized in advance for each situation, and the wording therefore isn't always the best for each situation. No valid reason for removing it from the lead has been discussed. Home Lander (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Home Lander: "I removed the last sentence in the top summary section as it is a leading sentence that tries to lead the reader to a conclusion. I think the community benefits better by having facts only and not opinion on the description." "Removed paragraph in first section since it is leading and tries to persuade reader to a conclusion without allowing the reader to decide for themselves." ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Home Lander: Also, as an FYI, you broke sanctions on the article by undoing two edits in a time span less than 2 hours. ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Was not aware that this article was covered by the sanctions, and have therefore self-reverted. I will say, however, per WP:VANDTYPES, that I don't see the reason that was provided for removal as a "non-frivolous explanation". Home Lander (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice of abortion-related article sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

The sanctions include a restriction to only one revert per 24-hour period, which you've already exceeded at The Silent Scream. Please see here for information on edit-warring policies and definitions of "revert" and other related terms. MastCell ^Talk 00:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

---