User talk:Crwannall

Discretionary sanctions for pages related to post-1932 politics

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 all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

Bishonen | talk 23:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

July 2017

Please don't edit war to restore your violations of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy at Stop Islamization of America. Instead, take the issue to the talkpage for discussion and try to get consensus for your changes. Bishonen | talk 23:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I hope you noticed that I only did one round of undoing someone's removal of my change. It was a no-name user with only an IP, and I wondered if that might not be reasonable to push back against. I'm happy to go see what comes out of getting a generic NPOV ruling without specifics as to which among the several sources were ruled inadmissible. Crwannall (talk) 05:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's not going to be a ruling; admins don't rule about content. The principle is that you're welcome to introduce a change, even in a highly controversial article, but if you do that and are reverted, you should not revert back but take it to talk to discuss. You're mistaken in thinking you're entitled to treat IPs as lesser beings.

Also, sources are admissible, or not, according to context — what they're being used as sources for — there are very few sources that are admissible for everything, or inadmissible for everything. You simply can't talk about sources without "specifics" — I realize that makes it harder, but that's also why it needs to be hashed out on talk. In this case, it wasn't so much because of the sources that I called your changes NPOV violations; it was because you derailed the lead section by starting to argue about the SPLC in the article itself. Please take that kind of thing to talk. (BTW, see how I indent both your and my replies with colons to make the discussion easier to follow? That's a useful trick, please try to do the same, see WP:INDENT.) Bishonen | talk 15:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks.Crwannall (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with an OCLC reference. In the page on Howard Bloom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Bloom) I added an item to the list of books, providing ISBN and OCLC. The link to ISBN finds the book on several sites. The link to OCLC does not locate the book, but if I start at worldcat.org and use the number I provided (2971354818) the book is found, resulting in this link: https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_bks&q=2971354818&fq=dt%3Abks.

Crwannall (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think whatever number you used there is WorldCat-specific, not the OCLC. I fixed that. Huon (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would make perfect sense. I am completely new to OCLC as a thing, so very easy to believe that I bungled it. I will try again, and thanks.Crwannall (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, humph. At classify.oclc.org, I searched by title, found the book, and got this "OCLC Work Id:2971354818", but found nothing in Google to explain whether maybe an "OCLC Work Id" might be something different from the OCLC number that Wikipedia is expecting. Does it mean anything to you? If not, I think I'll just delete it. It doesn't add anything that I care about very much at the moment. Crwannall (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the book on WorldCat and used whatever WorldCat said was the OCLC. I have no idea what an "OCLC Work ID" is, but the OCLC WorldCat link now works. Huon (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks! I learned something out of that. And I found the OCLC for the edition I was aiming at, and with that number, it still works. Very kind of you.Crwannall (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of talkpages

Hi again. If you propose changes to the article, you'd better put your suggestion in a separate section at the bottom of the talkpage, with a header (you create a header with two equals signs before and after your header text) and also don't forget to sign your post with four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which will turn automatically into your signature + timestamp. Putting a comment in the middle of an oldish discussion on the middle of the page won't achieve much; it won't be noticed. Also, you'll do yourself a favor if you propose something specific — actual text — for the article. Your current post doesn't really say what you want. For several reasons, then, I'm afraid it's likely to be ignored. Bishonen | talk 20:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, again.Crwannall (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crwannall, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Crwannall! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Dathus (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

January 2019

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to National Rifle Association. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - Mr X 🖋 01:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. O3000 (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RW reply: I provided two different versions. One was, I suppose you could reasonably say, my own synthesis, that there is no demonstrable or credible relation between the NRA's activities and the shootings named. That was removed. ostensible reason: no source. Okay. I restored that, and added that it is in fact a violation of their rules to commit a criminal act, with a source for that characterization of their rules. Both parts were removed. If the true reason for removal was lack of source, why was the source quote removed as well? And, since there are no credible claims of connection between their activities and the shootings, why would the statement be allowed to remain that says they are frequently criticized in the wake of such shootings? Absent proof of any connections, the criticisms are unwarranted at best, and misleading at worst.

1/23 - What am I missing? My edits are taken down within about 60 seconds. I am told to bring it here and have a conversation. My attempt to open that conversation goes ignored. We're past 24 hours now, I think. Nothing. Is there actually a public process here or not?

You should bring it to the article talk page (not your user talk page). Before you do, you should carefully read WP:EDIT, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CON, WP:NPOV and possible also WP:RSP so that you understand why your edits were reverted. Most of us who are here to build an encyclopedia learn the rules by making small improvement across many article, and engaging in talk page discussions before venturing into highly politically charged articles with controversial edits. - Mr X 🖋 20:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]