User talk:Outsellers

November 2022

Hi Outsellers! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Alex Epstein (American writer) several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Alex Epstein (American writer), please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. RL0919 (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out. I have created a discussion on the talk page. Outsellers (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Arado Ar 196. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Alex Epstein (American writer) seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 18:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. --VViking_TalkEdits 18:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Alex Epstein (American writer). 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to climate change, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

jps (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. jps (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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; read about 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. MrOllie (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2023 (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:Outsellers reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: ). Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Alex Epstein (American writer)) for edit warring and refusing to answer COI concerns.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Outsellers (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I removed poor sourcing from warring editors that did not read the talk page before editing. They did not clear up any confusion before editing, and continued to source non-political sources for a highly a controversial topic on a BLP, refusing to acknowledge Wikipedia's rules set in place for neutrality, undue weight, and BLP. Editors, without clearing up confusion, and disregarding prior resolutions, continue to edit the page with poor sourcing (including the Daily Maverick, Rolling Stone, and Yahoo News). In fact, I believe my edits to not only be constructive, but absolutely necessary in order to prevent poor editing and sourcing from non-neutral editors. Outsellers (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This still does not address the COI concerns about you. You have almost exclusively edited about Mr. Epstein and never spoken to that issue. Furthermore, you seem to be justifying your edit warring, not tell us why it was wrong. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Outsellers. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Human flourishing, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. JaggedHamster (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being paid. I started making edits to this page a year ago, when his book Fossil Future, came out, and I read it, and saw the mass amount of Wikipedia policies that were being disregarded, such as neutrality, undue weight, BLP, and poor sourccing.

I have correctly removed poor sources time and time again, and yet the administors of this website do nothing about it.

I am not a wikipedia expert, and their are other editors that simply claim "confusion" and rally people that they know will help them. Outsellers (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JaggedHamster is simply warning you for putting other Alex Epstein content into articles, given you are blocked from editing Alex Epstein. You should actually answer the COI part on the Alex Epstein talk page as a response to Black Kite's most recent question. Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked from editing Wikipedia

Your actions here when you were blocked from editing Alex Epstein (American writer) make it quite clear that you're not here to help build an encyclopedia, but only to promote an individual. You have been blocked indefinitely. 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 ~~~~}} Bishonen | tålk 09:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Outsellers (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am here to build an encyclopedia. That is why I chose to fix this page, as I am the only editor that has read his book. Judging from the talk page, many editors are simply adding their opinion, and then not doing their due diligence before making reversions and changes. It is clear that Wikipedia's stances on neutrality, undue weight, and BLP were broken and I introduced changes that reflected that, whic are still standing today. If it weren't for my changes, the lead paragraph of the page would say: "Climate denier." Imagine introducing the person on stage with the lead sentence that my "Edit wars" fixed. It's clear that there is no neutrality, and I now see why the consensus outside of this highly westernized bubble is that Wikipedia is in fact, not an encyclopedia. It seems more like tool being used to fit an agenda of editors who leverage their knowledge of the tool set in order to get their way. I do not need to explain why this is the only page I edit other than I have read his books, and feel strongly that this page is obviously a misrepresentation. If you read his entire page, it looks like it was created without good faith.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block and because, based on your comments, you will continue your disruptive editing if unblocked. Please note that your ability to comment on your talk page is a privilege and you will lose that privilege if you continue to insist that your edits are the only right ones. RegentsPark (comment) 16:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Someone else will review your request; I fixed it for proper display. Wikipedia does not claim to be neutral or unbiased. Wikipedia claims to have a neutral point of view, which is different. Bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia; those sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors. You can read Wikipedia and disagree with everything presented. If policies are not being applied properly, there are proper forums to address that. You still aren't addressing the inquiries about COI. Do you have one, yes or no? 331dot (talk)