User talk:Exadajdjadjajdsz

Welcome!

Hello, Exadajdjadjajdsz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Steve Jobs, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at United 2026 FIFA World Cup bid. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to articles and contents relating to post-1932 American politics and relating to gender-related disputes or controversies

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 recently shown interest in 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 any 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 recently shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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 any 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 10:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

The correct place to discuss your concern is at Talk:Rick Santorum. The article is subject to two sets of discretionary sanctions, so please stop making the change until there is consensus for it.

Your recent editing history at Rick Santorum shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. 20:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note- you tried to open a discussion at the talk page here - I have removed it. Please be aware that the WP:BLP policy applies everywhere in Wikipedia -- you cannot make claims about living people without presenting sources for those claims, anywhere. In that comment you made claims about Obama's positions on LGBT issues, but you presented no sources for them. You should also be aware that pointing at content in (or not in) other pages is generally not a productive argument here in WP.

Working in Wikipedia on content about contemporary politics is difficult. You would do much better to simply ask (and really ask) why the content you want to remove is acceptable in Wikipedia, and listen to the answers. Other people might decide that the content is not OK under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. But content here is based on the policies and guidelines here, not just what people like.

I wrote user:Jytdog/How for new users who are in a hurry - it provides an as-brief-as-possible orientation to what we do here, how we do it, and why. I hope you take some time and read it. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

moved comment here, that was left on my talk page in these diffs Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So the only problem with BLP on Santorum's page is regarding sourcing? Exadajdjadjajdsz (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is too vague for me to respond to you. If you are referring to your comment on the talk page, the BLP problem was the claims about obama without sourcing. The argument about what is, or not is, on the Obama page, is not useful, but that is not why i removed your comment. If you don't understand my answer to your question, you can reply here, just below this. That is better than replying at my page - the conversation should be in one place. (btw, I have posted the question at the talk page now. it is here: Talk:Rick_Santorum#LGBT_issues. )Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay yea, I'm referring to the talk page, I can easily find sources for my claims though, if you'll allow me to rewrite my dispute? Exadajdjadjajdsz (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already posted the question, as I noted above. You are free to post an argument about what is (or is not) on the Obama page, but again, it is not a productive argument in Wikipedia. But if you want to clutter the discussion about the content about Santorum and waste a bunch of your own time and that of others, knock yourself out. That is the kind of behavior that people will use to argue that the sanctions should be applied to you. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you decide what is productive? The question you posted on my behalf was already a truncated reference to my previous section, you neglected to mention that it potentially violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy ^[1] . No, it's not about what is or isn't on the Obama's page or any politician, it's about objectivity. Stating that any politician is a "bigot" or "fascist" using nebulous protesters as a source seems a bridge to far. Exadajdjadjajdsz (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are still failing to indent. See the section below on what you are communicating.

If you don't understand why I am saying it is unproductive, it would be wiser to ask why I am saying that.

You are generally being combative and not open to learning.

Also the content doesn't say "Santorum is a bigot"; it attributes those claims to the protestors. That is actually OK to do (if the sourcing is appropriate, etc). Misrepresenting what the content says is unacceptable behavior per WP:TPNO. Please don't continue to do that. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't state the content stated Santorum was a "bigot" or "fascist", I stated Stating that any politician is a "bigot" or "fascist" using nebulous protesters as a source seems a bridge to far. There's no indefinite article there, and i'm well aware those sources are attributed to protesters. If you want to be retentive about what I'm stating, then you're the one misrepresenting me. I've clearly stated that several times that there's no use retreading it here yet again.

I'm in agreement with you regarding the talk page, those sources seem more like trivia and not from a neutral point of view. The page itself seems to labor on Santorum's LGBT views and lacks neutrality. Six paragraphs dedicated to his LGBT views, and only sentences dedicated to his other views, seems asymmetrical in comparison to other politicians. If that's unproductive mentioning in the talk page, fine, I can be in agreement with you there also. I would just suggest that the section under his LGBT views have the same degree of brevity as other politicians. Exadajdjadjajdsz (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are still failing to indent your posts. This communicates rudeness. See the section below User_talk:Exadajdjadjajdsz#Note_on_using_talk_pages_-_threading_and_signing

Above you wrote Stating that any politician is a "bigot" or "fascist".... We make a big distinction in Wikipedia being saying something in Wikpedia's voice ("Santorum is a bigot") and attributed content ("The students said that Santorum is a bigot"). This distinction is important in Wikipedia. The content does not state that Santorum is a bigot. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're still laboring on a semantic point that's inconsequential. If an article states, "Students say Santorum is a bigot" or "Santorum is a bigot" the difference is negligible. Why even bother highlighting a source from unreputable third-party entities in the first place? This is not a Congressmen, Senator,Governor, or reputable News anchor saying this. Especially on a section specifically devoted to Santorum's positions on LGBT issues. This would never be done on any other article and shows a lack of decorum. There's no articles stating "Students say Obama is a communist" or "As Hannity noted, Obama hates America", because random students at an event aren't a reliable or credible source, neither are talk show hosts. This is practically like Trump saying, "People say it was the greatest, the best!", without Trump ever mentioning which people or their credibility or bias.02:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Exadajdjadjajdsz (talk)

I just told you that the distinction matters a great deal here. You will understand that better as you learn more about how things actually work here. You have exhausted my patience and I will not be responding here further. Jytdog (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good.I told you it's inconsequential, and you're still laboring over a point you needn't labor over. I'm glad that you're exhausted because I've been exhausted three responses ago, because you fail to grasp simple predicate logic, or address anything of relevance I stated previously.You didn't address anything about unreputable sources making claims, under Political candidates positions. Nor did you address anything about Santorum having six paragraphs dedicated to his "Anti-LGBT"(Which is incredibly vague phrasing, Anti-Marriage Equality would be more accurate) views, or how that framing is problematic. Instead you insist on laboring over phrasing and Wikipedia's voice vs "attributed content" (Which is nebulous).Being pedantic is useful when there are actual errors involved, not over these semantics. You started off this post with bad faith and continued (″Don't misrepresent what the content says″), when I clearly stated numerous times I took issue with the use of the Secondary Source and the Citation. E.G "People universally agree Santorum is a Fascist and a Bigot", Wikipedia didn't say that, people said that, but there's no identity of these people, there doesn't need to be! The Santorum page is littered with factual errors and partial-truths (Look at the actual sources referenced!), I'm surprised how amazingly frivolous and pseudo-scientific that section in particular comes across, but then again, I'm not amazed if you're the one editing it. Exadajdjadjajdsz (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't been sanctioned

You've been alerted to the existence of sanctions. Now that's been done, it is possible that you will be sanctioned. Simply follow our policies carefully and don't edit war and you should be ok. Doug Weller talk 20:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note on using talk pages - threading and signing

Please do have a read of WP:TPG, the guidelines for using talk pages. It will help you understand things and to avoid problems.

Quick note specifically on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here...

In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting (see WP:THREAD) - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and so on, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. Threading/indenting also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense.

Also, at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit.

Threading and signing, are how we know who said what to whom and when.

Please be aware that threading and signing are fundamental etiquette here, as basic as "please" and "thank you", and continually failing to thread and sign communicates rudeness, and eventually people may start to ignore you (see here).

I know this is unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

[1]