User talk:Hedgielamar

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...uploading my page on EJ Levy--it appears to be orphaned or inert; there are a number of wiki articles that refer to Levy, but I'm not sure that I've linked to them correctly. Do I need to "upload" it in some way to render it active? Thank you!

Hedgielamar Hedgielamar (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to move it for you - you cannot use the main user page for draft articles (someone will request speedy deletion as misuse of user page) - now at User:Hedgielamar/E.J. Levy. If you want to submit it for review add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki linking to new page

!help A number of Wikipedia entries mention the subject for which I've created a new wiki page, which is pending review; how can I link those mentions to my as-yet-unofficial entry? Do I need to wait until page is "published"? When I tap on my subject in other wiki entries (so as to link pages via [[ ]] ), I'm told no page exists and asked if I want to create one...thanks for your help! Hedgielamar (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do not accept links on Articles that link to the Draft space. If and when your draft is approved, the redlinks will turn blue because the Draft will become an Article. Primefac (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: E.J. Levy has been accepted

E.J. Levy, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

— Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E. J. Levy

Welcome to Wikipedia! Apologies, but I've had to revert your recent edit to E. J. Levy calling accusations of misgendering inaccurate. Wikipedia articles are based on statements made in reliable sources; adding material not attributable to any reliable source is called "original research". Common examples of reliable sources would be newspapers with a record of fact-checking and accuracy, scholarly books, and articles published in reputable journals; make sure to read over our guideline on reliable sources and perhaps the list at WP:RSP to get a better idea of what counts as a reliable source. While you may believe, even *know* that the accusations are false, none of the sources call the allegations of misgendering wrong. This is not, importantly, to make a value judgment about what the capital-T Truth of Barry's gender is — but the basic standard for including material in Wikipedia articles is verifiability, not truth. Additionally, in the tiny chance that you are a family member, friend, client or employer of Levy (or Levy herself), the guidelines strongly discourage directly contributing to Wikipedia. If this is the case, you should propose changes on the talk page using Template:Request edit and avoid directly editing the page; read WP:COI to get a better idea of how to contribute as a COI editor. Feel free to ask me any questions, and I'll try to respond. —0xf₈e₈ (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Barry (surgeon) and E. J. Levy

Hi there. You've been trying to downplay the controversy over Levy's book (and her misgendering of Barry) on both of these pages, usually with the edit summary "correcting inaccuracies", but you've either 1) introduced no supporting sources, or 2) attempted to introduce a low-quality and mis-cited source. I understand the desire to ensure that Levy is fairly represented, but that means you need to work with other editors, and it also means that you don't get to excise sourced material that you disagree with. Please reply here, or on my talkpage, or on the pages of either Levy or Barry, or anywhere really, so that we can have a productive conversation and work together to improve the quality of knowledge here. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please also review Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, which you are currently appearing to be. We're trying to work with you here; please work with us. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am glad to work with anyone who is factually representing these debates and the author's record. But repeated efforts to misrepresent the subjects--both the author and the controversy--run counter to Wiki's mission. It's my understanding that the JM Barry page now represents this accurately, citing articles from The Guardian, Bustle, the author's quoted statement and the publisher's. But someone has replaced accurate information on Levy with demonstrably inaccurate information; this is done repeatedly, evidently to misrepresent the author, who has published multiple books (as earlier citations demonstrate) and whose forthcoming novel uses male, female, and first-person pronouns, according to the author's statement quoted in Bustle. To allow page to revert to demonstrably inaccurate information runs contrary to Wiki's aims and purpose and terms. Thank you for helping to correct this. Hedgielamar (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great to finally hear from you! Reviewing the page for E. J. Levy, all content there appears to be correctly sourced and attributed. What, specifically, do you find to be demonstrably inaccurate? Levy's use of female pronouns is visible in multiple sources, as is her calling Barry a "heroine"; the only source that states male pronouns (and, confusingly, the first-person "I") is Bustle, which is not a good-quality source and is currently only included until we can find something better. Even then, the Bustle article states "Despite evidence that Barry used male pronouns to refer to himself, Levy used "she" in tweets on Wednesday and Thursday, claiming that Barry was "a heroine for our time" who "refused facile gender categories."" Please be specific as to what is inaccurate information and we can work together to correct it once your block has expired. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear back from you, NekoKatsun . The inaccurate information is of two kinds: 1) eliminating published works and awards, despite these being substantiated with citations (in particular, the opening-summary lists only one book and eliminates the highly relevant Lambda Award winning anthology; this has been corrected multiple times with citations/ISBNs provided); their removal seems to be part of an edit war. 2) The Bustle article is less good than The guardian's but a better source than the "Dot" and it is the only one that quotes the author in question, which seems important; the other articles speculate on the basis of tweets, not based on the book itself; according to the author's quoted statement, this characterization misrepresents the book, which apparently uses diverse pronouns to reference Barry. Further, the excellent article in The Guardian offers balanced quotes--including from the Cardiff scholar--which are not represented here. The Guardian article ends with a clear statement that Barry's gender is open to interpretation, and the Cardiff scholar clearly states that a trans reading does not easily map onto Barry. The repeated effort to exclude this balanced perspective and to misrepresent Levy and her book and the controversy over Barry seems in violation of Wiki norms, as Sarah Sloane noted previously. The James Barry Wiki description of the project is more balanced and should be the template here. The inaccuracies should be corrected. Removed citation-supported claims to distort the record should not continue. Hedgielamar (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've tracked down the Lambda award source and added that to the article; as you know, we try to source as much as possible, and stating that an author won an award without sourcing it is an easy way to get your edit reverted. The Bustle article has been added already to cite Levy's claim that the novel uses "he" and "I" in addition to "she", as well as to cite the publisher's response that they will be working with Levy to ensure the book is respectful to Dr. Barry. In regards to the Daily Dot article, it's extremely bad form to remove a source you disagree with; in regards to the Guardian, it's cited fairly extensively and Heilmann is quoted directly in Levy's article. As far as I can tell, the controversy is fairly represented - Levy has written a book that refers to Barry with a wide variety of pronouns, and a lot of people are very upset by it. I see no non-neutral language, and nothing that's untrue.

As a note, you may want to avoid using the first name of another editor who's explicitly disclosed that they have a conflict of interest with the subject of the article (assuming you're speaking of Sloane French when you say "Sarah Sloane"). If you yourself have a conflict of interest - if you know Levy in real life, for example - it's considered best on Wikipedia to first disclose the conflict, and to then avoid editing the subject of the conflict without first seeking consensus on the talkpage. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NekoKatsun: I appreciate your having tracked down a source for the Lambda. My concerns about the Levy page are the following, and alas ongoing, in what appears to be an edit war withWallyfromdilbert. I don't know Wiki well, so am trying in good faith to engage in discussion with editors about these issues and to post my concerns in several places, since I have been warned that I am not "talking" in the correct Talk area (whatever that might be):

My concerns and edits on the Levy page are of three kinds:

1) Quotes from articles should accurately reflect diverse views of JM Barry and Levy's book. It is inaccurate and misleading to *delete* (as Wallyfromdilbert has done) quotes from The Guardian that reflect contrary scholarly views of this issue, and to leave out entirely biographer Dronfield's opinions. Adding the following quotes from Heilman and Dronfield from The Guardian seems important to accurately characterize scholarly opinion, if any such opinion is to be quoted on Levy's page:

Ann Heilman says, “While I understand that emotions run very high (understandably so, given the difficulties trans people face…), I don’t think that Barry can be that easily mapped on to contemporary trans thought."

Further, "Jeremy Dronfield, co-author of Dr James Barry: A Woman Ahead of Her Time, said: '…When Margaret became James, it wasn’t primarily because she wanted to be a man. She wanted to live the kind of life which in 1809 was impossible for a woman. Once the persona had served its purpose, Margaret intended to discard it. Circumstances prevented that. There’s evidence that Barry missed being a woman…. The claim made online that Barry left a will asking to be remembered as a man is false. He left no statement of identity….If Margaret had been born in 1989 instead of 1789, free to be a surgeon and soldier, would she have chosen to become a man? On balance, I don’t think so…'

2) Wiki editors should characterize Levy's novel *only* if they can quote from its pages; they don't and cannot, as the book has not been published; they are responding to a publisher's announcement and tweets, not to the novel. So the novel should not be characterized or rather mis-characterized here. To claim the novel uses words (eg heroine) that the author explicitly says it does *not* use (author *states* it uses he,she, hero), or to claim the novel is transphobic, without having read it, is more than unfactual; it is close to defamatory. Unfactual assertions and speculations should not be included in a Wiki page. I have cut them therefore, repeatedly. These are allegations merely, not facts. They contradict what the author has publicly stated to Bustle and now the Times (in an earlier edit, I quoted Bustle article in which Levy states that book uses "he," "she" and "I," as well as "hero"; that's the only evidence of the novel's character that is in any of these articles).

3) Given that this novel is only one work of four by this author, which has not even been published, the disproportionate emphasis on this forthcoming book seems inapt; I have not attempted to correct this, but I would strongly advise that the lengthy quotes and speculation about this book be cut. A single brief paragraph summarizing the debate over publisher's acquisition in February and citing relevant articles (Guardian, Times, Bustle, Dot) for further reading would seem to suffice. It seems a misapplication of a Wiki page to use it as a site to carry on a Twitter debate, as this edit war appears to do; the page should reflect balanced and factual information, not continue an argument that is better carried on elsewhere.

So first off, the edit summary is not a good place to have a conversation (you say you don't know Wiki well, so I'll start with some basics :) ). It's for briefly describing your changes, like "fixed typo" or "reverted vandalism" or "added source for <claim>". To have a conversation about potential changes, as we're doing, the ideal place is the talkpage of the article in question (which I see you're doing, so good job!). That's what people mean when they say things like "take it to the talkpage"; they want you to discuss with them so that we can all have a version of the article we're happy with. You might want to check out WP:BRD for an overview of the process, but the key thing to take away is that if one of your edits is challenged or reverted, it's up to you to open the discussion on the talkpage, not to start an edit war by reverting the person who reverted you. Now, to address your points in order...

The vast majority of sources thus far are overwhelmingly of the opinion that male pronouns should be used for Barry, doing otherwise is rude at best and transphobic at worst, and to carefully select the only two comments in the entire article that run contrary to that is a misrepresentation of the article as a whole. Heilmann used male pronouns. Dronfield used male pronouns.
Wikipedia prefers third-party sources over first-party sources. We have sourced comments from articles that quote the author as referring to Barry as "a heroine for our time" who "refused facile gender categories" (those exact comments are in the Bustle article, by the way). Respectfully, I suggest you spend time familiarizing yourself with what Wikipedia looks for in sourcing, and why third-party sources are so important. Further, Wikipedia takes the Biography of Living Persons policy very seriously; note that nowhere on Levy's page is she called transphobic, because we simply don't have a source that says that. We have articles stating that there is a massive controversy and ones that call the book transphobic, and we are well within facts to record both.
(as an aside, be very careful when throwing around words like 'defamatory'; Wikipedia is notoriously hardline about its stance towards any possible legal action, and I'd hate to see you end up in that particular quagmire)
To be honest, I doubt much of the world (or even much of America) had even heard of Levy before The Cape Doctor was announced. As this is what she's best known for, it makes sense for this to be the bulk of her article. Her page has a brief mention of her history (which is uncited, I've been looking but am unable to dig up anything concrete so far), a paragraph about her previous work, and a paragraph about her currently-best-known work and why it's controversial. This is, actually, pretty balanced. Again, respectfully, part of being on Wikipedia is acknowledging when something is objectively balanced, even if it's not the perspective you like or you think it makes someone you respect sound bad. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 14:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgieeeee, I thought we were having a pretty productive conversation! Why would you go and edit the Levy article again without establishing consensus first? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 13:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And again! Bustle is a low-quality source and has been removed entirely, and it shouldn't be put back unless you consult with other editors on the talkpage and get consensus that it should be in there. If you look at your previous point 3 above, you'll see that the information about The Cape Doctor has been trimmed way back, and only two sources (those agreed to be of higher quality) remain. Bustle is not a good enough source to include, so Levy's email to them is also not to be included, no matter how vehemently she defended herself there. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NekoKatsun I understand that you don't like Bustle as a source, but it is legitimate, edited by a McGill J school graduate and as robust a source as Dot. Moreover, it is the only article where the author is quoted about pronouns, thus deserves inclusion. Characterizing a book in direct contradiction of an author's statements about its content, without quoted evidence, is mischaracterization and unverifiable. What we *know* about the novel's use of pronouns comes from Levy's statements to Bustle, The Times (I think) and tweets. Please restore my edit, which correctly characterizes both novel and tweets and is verifiable. Wiki shouldn't be used to promote a biased view, as you know. Edits should be verifiable and neutral. The edits that I propose do both. I hope you concur. Thanks!

Of course they should be verifiable and neutral, and they should also come from reliable, high-quality sources. Community consensus is that Bustle does not meet this standard. You're welcome to reopen that discussion on the sourcing noticeboard, if you like; repeatedly inserting your preferred version of the page without taking steps like that isn't going to win you any friends and isn't going to persuade anyone to keep it.

You also need to disclose if you have a conflict of interest - if you know Levy in real life, for example. It truly feels like you do. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:51, 20 March 2019 (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. Thank you. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgielamar: your account is about to be blocked. To avoid this, please do the following as soon as practical:

stop edit warring
reply to the messages on this page from other editors
visit Talk:James Barry (surgeon) and contribute to the discussion
declare any conflict of interest you may have with James Barry and/or E. J. Levy

Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at James Barry (surgeon). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help me! Efforts to correct demonstrably unfactual page edits have become edit war which seems to intentionally misrepresent author and controversy

Please use the {{help me}} template appropriately.
The {{help me}} template is for help in using Wikipedia, not for unrelated issues. If you would like to ask such a question, replace the code {{help me-inappropriate}} on this page with {{help me}} to reactivate the help request. Alternatively, you can also ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance.

Please help me with the following..

Hi, I have been trying to restore accuracy and balance to the EJ Levy page, restoring accurate text and citations written by a prior editor, but several accounts appear to be reverting page to blatantly unfactual material. I am glad to work with anyone who is factually representing these debates and the author's record. But repeated efforts to misrepresent the subjects--both the author and the controversy--run counter to Wiki's mission. It's my understanding that the JM Barry page now represents this accurately, citing articles from The Guardian, Bustle, the author's quoted statement and the publisher's. But someone has replaced accurate information on Levy with demonstrably inaccurate information; this is done repeatedly, evidently to misrepresent the author, who has published multiple books (as earlier citations demonstrate) and whose forthcoming novel uses male, female, and first-person pronouns, according to the author's statement quoted in Bustle. To allow page to revert to demonstrably inaccurate information runs contrary to Wiki's aims and purpose and terms. Thank you for helping to correct this.

Hedgielamar (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please use {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} to request unblocking. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 17:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop disruptive edits on E.J. Levy and use the talk page instead

You have already been banned once for your disruptive behavior and edit warring on E.J. Levy. You then had your ban extended for using a sockpuppet to continue to push your point of view. Your ban has only recently ended, and you are now continuing the same behavior. Wikipedia is based on information from reliable sources, and your personal opinion and interpretation is irrelevant as original research. Please stop removing sourced content immediately or you will be banned again. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wallyfromdilbert If you are interested in accuracy, stop reverting to inaccurate text. You appear to be edit warring. If there's another place to discuss this, I'm glad to do, but reverting to inaccurate text is not collaborative editing--Levy is quoted in multiple articles as saying book refers to Barry as hero and by diverse pronouns. There is no evidence book is transphobic. If there is, that needs to be substantiated, not asserted. I am correcting for balance and accuracy. Adding quotes to accurately reflect scholars' positions from Guardian is important; to remove such balance as you have repeatedly is to misrepresent the debate. Hedgielamar (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Inaccuracies need to be corrected, Wallyfromdilbert, as should beimbalance in quoting scholars. Wiki is meant to be collaborative and courteous. I'm endeavoring to be so, but your repeated efforts to revert to inaccurate and imbalanced representations appear to be an edit war and contrary to the norms of Wiki. I hope you'll desist and choose to collaborate to create an accurate, factual, and balanced page regarding this author and James Barry. Thanks! Hedgielamar (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since multiple editors disagree with your changes, you must take the matter to the article's talk page. Discuss it there, and if consensus emerges to change the article, then you can make the changes—but only after a new consensus emerges. —C.Fred (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, your edits at E. J. Levy do not qualify for an exception to WP:3RR, so a fourth revert could lead to an immediate re-blocking of your account. —C.Fred (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wallyfromdilbert C.Fred: I am re-posting the following statement of concerns regarding the Levy page, since it appears that my previous statements may not have reached you. So, here goes.

My concerns and edits are of three kinds:

1) Quotes from articles should accurately reflect diverse views of JM Barry and Levy's book. It is inaccurate and misleading to *delete* (as you have done Wallyfromdilbert) quotes from The Guardian that reflect contrary scholarly views of this issue, and to leave out biographer Dronfield's opinions entirely. Adding the following quotes from Heilman and Dronfield from The Guardian seems important to accurately characterize scholarly opinion, if any such opinion is to be quoted on Levy's page:

Ann Heilman says, “While I understand that emotions run very high (understandably so, given the difficulties trans people face…), I don’t think that Barry can be that easily mapped on to contemporary trans thought."

Further, "Jeremy Dronfield, co-author of Dr James Barry: A Woman Ahead of Her Time, said: '…When Margaret became James, it wasn’t primarily because she wanted to be a man. She wanted to live the kind of life which in 1809 was impossible for a woman. Once the persona had served its purpose, Margaret intended to discard it. Circumstances prevented that. There’s evidence that Barry missed being a woman…. The claim made online that Barry left a will asking to be remembered as a man is false. He left no statement of identity….If Margaret had been born in 1989 instead of 1789, free to be a surgeon and soldier, would she have chosen to become a man? On balance, I don’t think so…'

2) Wiki editors should characterize Levy's novel *only* if they can quote from its pages; they don't and cannot, as the book has not been published; they are responding to a publisher's announcement and tweets, not to the novel. So the novel should not be characterized or rather mis-characterized here. To claim the novel uses words (eg heroine) that the author explicitly says it does *not* use (author *states* it uses he,she, hero), or to claim the novel is transphobic, without having read it, is more than unfactual; it is close to defamatory. Unfactual assertions and speculations should not be included in a Wiki page. I have cut them therefore, repeatedly. These are allegations merely, not facts. They contradict what the author has publicly stated to Bustle and now the Times (in an earlier edit, I quoted Bustle article in which Levy states that book uses "he," "she" and "I," as well as "hero"; that's the only evidence of the novel's character that is in any of these articles).

3) Given that this novel is only one work of four by this author, which has not even been published, the disproportionate emphasis on this forthcoming book seems inapt; I have not attempted to correct this, but I would strongly advise that the lengthy quotes and speculation about this book be cut. A single brief paragraph summarizing the debate over publisher's acquisition in February and citing relevant articles (Guardian, Times, Bustle, Dot) for further reading would seem to suffice. It seems a misapplication of a Wiki page to use it as a site to carry on a Twitter debate, as this edit war appears to do; the page should reflect balanced and factual information, not continue an argument that is better carried on elsewhere.

Continued disruptive editing on E. J. Levy

Hedgielamar: Your edits (e.g., [1] [2]) to E. J. Levy are disruptive. You need to stop or you will be reported for your behavior again.

First, your edits go against the clear community discussion on the talk page. Wikipedia is based on a discussion model after there has been a dispute over the main article. If you are unsatisfied with the talk page discussion, you can seek alternative dispute resolution procedures, but you may not continue to push your POV through edit warring.
Second, your edits are flatly contradicted the actual sources. Levy never states that Barry is called a hero in the novel, and even implies that she disagrees with that perspective. Her actual quote in the source you keep adding is, "I have deep respect for those who claim Barry as a trans hero, but I find confounding the idea that anyone would attempt to limit how we might imagine Barry's life." Additionally, the statement that the novel never uses the term "heroine" is not supported by any of the sources and expressly contradicted by The Guardian source, which states both that "The Cape Doctor by EJ Levy, which describes the individual born Margaret Ann Bulkley as 'a heroine'" and "Levy, who identifies as queer, defended her use of female pronouns in the novel".
Finally, you are trying to push a particular point of view that goes against the neutrality of Wikipedia. For example, your repeated insertion of the phrase "dressed as a man to enter medical school and the army" is clearly an attempt to push your narrative. You have added this in every one of your edits even despite the source you include stating that "James Miranda Steuart Barry lived as a man for more than 50 years, from his late teens or early twenties until the time of his death in 1865" and explicitly criticized your characterization by saying, "The Cape Doctor also appears to misgender Barry, presenting him as a cisgender woman — hence the word 'homosexual' in quotes — who disguised herself as a man in order to pursue a career in medicine." As a single-purpose account, you need to stop pushing a biased POV:
"single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project."

You need to stop making your same edits to the page and instead the talk page: Talk:E. J. Levy. If you continue to edit the main article with the same misinformation, I will report you to WP:AN3 for tendentious disruptive editing. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you were already explicitly warned by C.Fred for this same reason: "Since multiple editors disagree with your changes, you must take the matter to the article's talk page. Discuss it there, and if consensus emerges to change the article, then you can make the changes—but only after a new consensus emerges." [3] Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be 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. 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.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on E. J. Levy; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2019 (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:Hedgielamar reported by User:Marchjuly (Result: ). Thank you. — Marchjuly (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —C.Fred (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be advised of one other thing: if you attempt to abuse multiple accounts (again) to try to edit, then those accounts and this account will be blocked indefinitely. —C.Fred (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]