User talk:Christianjamesscott

March 2023

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to G. Edward Griffin, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. CityOfSilver 18:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at G. Edward Griffin 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. Doug Weller talk 19:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G. Edward Griffin

You said "Please see the discussion in talk concerning this". Could you point me to it? Griffin's talk page has a massive archive and I couldn't track down exactly which discussion you mean. CityOfSilver 19:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:G._Edward_Griffin/Archive_10#a_%22Debunked%22_reference_with_a_word_count_less_than_100

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:G._Edward_Griffin/Archive_10#Use_of_%22false%22

There are multiple places in this archive where from my research it appears everyone agrees that this is not an appropriate use of citation / shouldn't be used as a source for the claim in the sentence "debunked conspiracy theories".

I'm not trying to change that this person should be labeled a conspiracy theorist. They should. However, the claim and source on the Jekyll Island sentence is inaccurate and misleading. Christianjamesscott (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thank you. There needs to be a discussion on the article's talk page as to whether the "Pranksters" book can be used to source the word "debunked" because I don't see where consensus has been conclusively established either way. So would you please hold off on editing the article? Per WP:3RR, the next time you remove that text it's an automatic block and I really think the discussion needs your input. CityOfSilver 19:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will not edit the article further. The last post was here before it was archived. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:G._Edward_Griffin/Archive_10#%E2%80%9CDebunked%E2%80%9D_citation

I'm new to editing but was seriously concerned after reading through the most recent archive that this was still on the page. I will post a new discussion on the most recent talk page if that is the correct path forward. Christianjamesscott (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually writing a new discussion at Talk:G. Edward Griffin but if you'd rather start it, let me know. Thank you for holding off on editing. CityOfSilver 20:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted my peace on the subject. Thank you for the help :) Christianjamesscott (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]