User talk:PubliusJPublic
Edit war
[edit]
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. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- The record should be clearly stated in a neutral way and there is plenty of precedent for explaining the content of controversial topics related to journos and others. I'm not sure why exactly you continue to engage in corrections of factual statements that are more than relevant to the topic. Is there a reason you don't want the controversial content included on Wikipedia? PubliusJPublic (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't accuse editors of engaging in bad faith or having an agenda. Please see WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS. Secondly, you do now own the article in question and do not get to be the sole arbiter of content, and you've been editorializing the quotes in the article. This is mostly a discussion for the talk page, which I encourage you to engage with. You may want to read WP:OWN. Keep in mind that the quote you changed to "Alito was further recorded discussing" was actually described in the article you added as Alito lamenting, not just discussing. But again, this mostly belongs on the talk page. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- You don't own that mantle either. I have not editorialized any quotes in the article. They come directly from the linked Politico story. Ms. Windsor is known in part for her characterization of the Justice's comments as captured by her secret recordings. It's worth noting what the Justices actually said and how they said it on any Wikipedia article referring to this portion of her work. You are no different than I am when it comes to editing content on Wikipedia, so, either the rules apply to us both or they apply to neither. PubliusJPublic (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't accuse editors of engaging in bad faith or having an agenda. Please see WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS. Secondly, you do now own the article in question and do not get to be the sole arbiter of content, and you've been editorializing the quotes in the article. This is mostly a discussion for the talk page, which I encourage you to engage with. You may want to read WP:OWN. Keep in mind that the quote you changed to "Alito was further recorded discussing" was actually described in the article you added as Alito lamenting, not just discussing. But again, this mostly belongs on the talk page. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)