User talk:AmorDoctrinaeFloreat

May 2020

Hello, I'm Flyer22 Frozen. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Alison Roman—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am AmorDoctrinaeFloreat. The edits conform to the BOLP guidelines, being in a neutral tone, balanced, and citing news articles. The issue with the original article is that it stated that Alison Roman received social media backlash and because she criticized consumer brands heralded by Asian women Chrissy Teigen and Marie Kondo. This is inaccurate. The reason for the backlash she received is contextualized accurately in the edit presenting both Alison's detailed response and clarification of any misconceptions from her commentary. Alison was criticized because she chose to lambast two Asian women, while sidestepping critique of a White woman with a lifestyle brand- Gwyneth Paltrow, owner of the website Goop. The original articles erroneously implies that Alison was merely receiving fallout due to disagreeing with the branding efforts of Asian women. There are several news articles which do not include the details correctly and as such it is important to contextualize in order to facilitate comprehension of the issue. Wikipedia is a worldwide platform and the original article and its links do not explain plainly what is at issue. Finally, as Alison Roman has been subject to a change in her career due to this issue, having her the publication of her New York Times column put on hiatus and the future of her upcoming tv show put into question, the incident has gone beyond a passing occurrence. Finally this is an important contribution for understanding how Alison Roman became the centre of a debate surrounding representation in food media and gentrification of ethnic recipes and their marketing by non-ethnic media personalities, which has now become a growing topic in food media. If you do not understand the significance of these issues, it is imprudent to delete text which explains them by arbitrarily claiming it to be "not constructive" . If there is a specific critique that you have of a section, rather than delete text, work to improve it as per Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmorDoctrinaeFloreat (talk • contribs) 06:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

Regarding Alison Roman, read our WP:BLP policy. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above. User:AmorDoctrinaeFloreat, why don't you go to the article's talk page and let's figure out what it is we want to do. I started a discussion section there. Ditch ∝ 05:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Alison Roman 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. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes: There was indeed a discussion on the talk page, which you participated in. You cannot continue to add content when it's been opposed, especially when WP:BLP concerns are present. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]