User talk:EditWisconsin

New editor!

Hello! I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm interested in learning about the intricacies of the platform. If I've made a mistake, please just let me know and I'll correct as soon as possible. Tips and suggestions are always welcome! Thanks!

EditWisconsin, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi EditWisconsin! 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 Naypta (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Robin Vos

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. 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

You have been mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chase_Simpson Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important standard notice re: edits in particular topic areas on Wikipedia

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.

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

--Neutrality^talk 23:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A standard template with some information for you is above. On a separate note, please don't restore material that has been challenged on grounds of Wikipedia policy, including WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. That is considered improper edit-warring and is frowned upon as it circumvents consensus building; see also WP:ONUS. Neutrality^talk 23:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I've seen so far I lean to your point of view on the Robin Vos WP:OR, WP:SYNTH issue

I just posted to User_talk:Neutrality#WP:SYNTH_on_Robin_Vos. Based on what I've seen so far I lean more toward your point of view. That it isn't WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jjjjjjjjjj:: Thanks. I'm new, so some of the quirks of editing are difficult to get down. My contention is that since the ABC News source doesn't mention Vos either, but it reports on data that may or may not be concrete, that the CDC article provides a clarifying counter point with concrete data. EditWisconsin (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]