User talk:J.S. Gutenberg

Welcome!

Hello, J.S. Gutenberg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Anti-pattern does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2022 (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 governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

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... The editor who deleted my contributions to Anti-pattern did so in a highly biased and non-neutral way, apparently since they disagreed with her personal political bias, which is in fact well documented in her own Wikipedia edits. I find her edits abusive and NOT in keeping with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV).

Needless to say, this is frustrating and makes me NOT want to contribute to Wikipedia. I hope we agree that is not a good result for anyone or the community as a whole. What recourse do I have for her highly biased and non-neutral actions?

If your goal is to be one-sided, biased and non-neutral thought police, then please let me know, and I will boycott Wikipedia. J.S. Gutenberg (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you were reverted by Drmies, who I've just notified by linking to their username. I also see a lengthy discussion on the talk page of anti-pattern, which is the proper way of starting. If you want to escalate further, you could follow the guidelines here, with a caveat that this is a debate already escalated to the "last resort" of the arbitration committee (hence, the above notice).

However, if you continue to be so sensitive that you consider a revert "abusive," then I doubt the conflict will be ever fully resolved. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Your edits were removed because they were unsourced original research, not due to bias or because we are the thought police. You are entitled to your views, but Wikipedia articles are not for posting our personal views. If you have an independent reliable source to support what you wrote, please offer it. You are free to read Wikipedia and disbelieve everything presented. No one here is the thought police. Wikipedia does not provide equal treatment for all points of view if reliable sources do not, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. If you are interested only in reading and or posting conservative talking points, maybe you should reconsider your participation here. If you are interested in collaboration with other editors irrespective of what you see as their views, please do.331dot (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, I wish I had seen what happened on April 6 last year after my cleanup; it would have been interesting to run CU on User:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

You are engaged in a content dispute and have started a discussion on the related talk page where you and other editors can try to come to a consensus about what should appear in the article. The helpers who respond to {{help}} requests, not to mention admins, have no ability to drive the consensus one way or another; you must seek agreement from the other involved editors and, if that doesn't get you anywhere, you can follow the steps of dispute resolution to gather more views from yet more editors until - we hope - a consensus is reached.

If you think another editor's behavior is a problem, there are noticeboards such as WP:ANI where you can present your complaints, but even as I tell you this, I have to warn you that administrative noticeboards should be used only after you have made direct engagement with the other editors involved and fully considered whether your own behavior has perhaps been causing problems.

We want Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but over the years a tremendous amount of policy and precedent has built up, some of whose principles seem surprising or contradictory to new editors. When you run into these aspects, it can be frustrating, but work through the difficulties with patience and good will towards the other editors, nearly all of whom want, as you do, an unbiased and well-founded encyclopedia. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]