User talk:Enlightened editor

Joan McAlpine

Please do not revert again per WP:3RR. My removal of the content is justified under WP:BLP. It's up to the user making assertions about a living person to source their content reliably. Jmorrison230582 (talk)

The content is sourced reliably. Do not revert again.

You cannot say that someone is "noted for [being involved] in several controversies" without providing a supporting reference. It's clearly a negative POV of the person. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for a second opinion on this at the BLP noticeboard. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Enlightened_editor reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: ). Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

You are not yet edit warring on a couple of articles but you are breaking WP:BRD. You were bold, you were reverted now you discuss. You also need to read up the three pillars on evidence. We use third party references not only to establish facts but also notability. The simply fact that you can find an article somewhere which says something does not constitute a source. So an accusation by the leader of UKIP is an opinion not a fact. For it to be included there would need to be a source which either established that the accusation was fact or that the accusation was of itself notable.

Whatever, if you edits are reverted by another experienced editor you take it to the talk page. You don't revert ----Snowded ^TALK 06:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone on to discuss these edits on the talk page.

April 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Unite Against Fascism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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 breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am well aware of this rule. I have only had to revert because you keep using contentious language that has no third party source. Enlightened editor (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for change which means the article stays as it is per WP:BRD. You don't decide what is or is not sourced, you have to get agreement from other editors. Multiple IPs suddenly appeared to support your position all editing from the same location and now with a block on IPs you start edit warring. Enough evidence for a sock puppet investigation. So I suggest you self revert to show your are willing to follow the rules. If not then its a reversion of your change and a report ----Snowded ^TALK 18:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are not engaging with basic logic. Your contentious language has no third party support. When language is contentious it makes sense to remove it unless a third party source can be used to support it.

You don't make that decision. If you disagree you call a RfC. As it is you have just edit warred again. So per the talk page I suggest you self revert or its a report and a possible block. I'll leave it until later today to file that report if you haven't taken action yourself. Checking this is not the only article where you have edit warred and that will be included in any report. The fact that you came in to edit warring as soon as the two IPs were blocked is also enough evidence to request a sock puppet investigation ----Snowded ^TALK 07:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Enlightened, what about trying Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests ? We are both now being accused of possible sock puppetry, and the discussion on the talk page is not progressing. --Flexdream (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hopefully RfA is unnecessary now.[[1]]--Flexdream (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate notification

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, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, 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 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.

Johnuniq (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Enlightened editor, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you may wish to read WP:NPA -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am well award of WP:NPA perhaps you should reread it and make yourself a better contributor.

Apparently you are not very well acquainted with it. Please actually read it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]