User talk:Brettlm

Welcome!

Hello, Brettlm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Tiff Macklem did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Introduction tutorial
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Introduction to referencing
Help pages
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. My additions to the Tif Macklem page are two objective statements backed with direct primary source evidence. No conclusion was made. Nothing postive nor negative was presented. I feel you are allowing your own bias to intefere in your editorship. I have requested an official dispute arbitration on this and will recommend a reprimand for you against imposing your bias on factual evidence. Brettlm (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the exact copy of my additions. The first citation is a video with Tiff on video statement what has been quoted. The second citation is the Bank of Canada's Interest Rate page. No conclusion was presented.

In July 2020 Macklem said "If you've got a mortgage or if you're considering to make a major purchase [sic], or you're a business and you are considering making an investment you can be confident that interest rates will be low for a long time." [citation] Twenty months later The Bank of Canada began increaseing interest rates at a historic rate. [citation] Brettlm (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tiff Macklem

If you believe that the disputed material you are adding does not run afoul of WP:SYNTH, then you need to get consensus for the inclusion of the disputed content prior to restoring it.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC) ...and if you continue to restore, you will be blocked from editing.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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.

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. Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Tiff Macklem. 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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]