User talk:EWBlyden 85

EWBlyden 85, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi EWBlyden 85! 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 Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Charlie Kirk page poll

Hello EWBlyden 85, just wanted to give you a heads up that there was a poll put up on the Turning Point USA Talk page, about Charlie Kirk getting his own page, I saw you expressed interest on this matter. Thought you might like to add to the discussion. If you need assistance just reply to this message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RawHide93 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above canvassing editor was blocked as a sockpuppet of The Expert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll be sure to weigh in. EWBlyden 85 (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 20:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 US Banknote Contest

US Banknote Contest

November-December 2019

There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons.

In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate.

If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)[reply]

February 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Project Veritas, 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. — Newslinger talk 18:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Newslinger I provided a valid reason in the edit summary. I understand you are an administrator, but you should not use your prerogatives to make biased judgments about the validity of edits in a subject of political controversy. There is no objective standard, of intellectual history or political science, by which Project Veritas could be deemed "far-right." EWBlyden 85 (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EWBlyden 85, the "far-right" descriptor is currently supported by 10 reliable sources, all cited adjacent to the descriptor, and your edit summary did not explain why your choice of wording should ignore these sources (WP:V). Feel free to start a discussion on the talk page. I am editing the article in my capacity as an editor, not as an administrator. — Newslinger talk 20:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. — Newslinger talk 18:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redding News Review

If you restore a properly removed speedy tag again, as you did in the above article, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I assumed it was an act of vandalism because I did not know you were an administrator and the subject and likely author of the article is known to have proxies that remove deletion notices. What is your reason for removing the speedy tag? The article has serious issues and is written in blatant self-promotion, except for the controversies section, which has other issues. EWBlyden 85 (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another administrator removed your G11 after I did; the article is not a G11. If you believe the subject is not notable, you must use a different deletion process. And next time you assume bad faith on the part of an editor (me), take a moment to check who they are.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and apologize for my mistake, but I would have appreciated a brief explanation for the removal of the notice in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.EWBlyden 85 (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By use a different deletion process, Bbb23 did not mean try to reopen a 16-year-old AfD. Stop being disruptive. ‑ Iridescent 17:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: What are you talking about? Please don't insult me as "disruptive" when I'm just trying to help curate these articles, even if I am just a novice editor. EWBlyden 85 (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD you linked to was done well before my current issues with the Redding News Review page. I did not reopen it now. Both of those articles are awful and should not be on Wikipedia. EWBlyden 85 (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have raised the same concerns about Redding's pages, which are really among the worst in terms of relying on the author/subject's own self-promotional sources and containing false and misleading info about the author/subject. Just because action has not been taken in the last decade, doesn't mean action should not be taken now. EWBlyden 85 (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I understand what @Iridescent: was referring to. Still would appreciate more patience and kindness from admins as I try to learn how best to help Wikipedia.EWBlyden 85 (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]