User talk:Rectipaedia

Hello, Rectipaedia, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ronz (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

log. pos.

If you see an unsourced statement in an article that you're unsure about then please go ahead and tag it ^{[citation needed]} or, if you're sure it's uncontroversially inappropriate, even try removing it once.

If you find a statement that is supported by a reference, but you still think the statement is wrong, the most persuasive thing to do is to find a more reliable reference which contradicts the statement. Remember, VnT:

different people often have peculiar (mutually inconsistent) views about what is true,
we don't check whether editors have the expertise to verify the truth of anything independently,
so instead our focus here is to report on authorative sources treating things as true.

It might be the case that scholars are divided evenly into two equally-notable camps regarding a particular issue, in which case it might be best if the article could attribute both views to both camps. Cesiumfrog (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious POV pushing and edit warring

Your recent editing history at Logical positivism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 11:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Epicanthic fold with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Notification

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This is just a courtesy notification. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax, Nova Scotia

Good day. I have reverted your edit to the article. If you will please check here you will find that a LONG discussion has taken place re the HRM moniker. The rationale of how we as editors dealt with this and why are there as well.Regards. Aloha27 talk 00:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Otoya Yamaguchi, you may be blocked from editing. JesseRafe (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add anything to the article. Rectipaedia (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't, that's true. But you did remove legitimate content December 15th, January 25th, and just a few minutes ago. So you edited the page, which is what the warning is for, not "adding". Be advised you are warned for your POV edits, not being contrarian or plainly denying facts, though those warnings may come in due time if you keep it up. JesseRafe (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with a reversion, you should discuss it in the article's talk page rather than engage in edit warring. The information was provided with no source and is as clear a case as any of a violation of Wikipedia's requirement that articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Rectipaedia (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Otoya Yamaguchi. Self-revert your edit warring, please. Consensus was already reached on the talk page prior. Simply adding new comments does not make or break consensus, no one has replied to you since. You are also being willfully obtuse as there are a DOZEN SOURCES indicated the Proud Boys are a neo-fascist hate group in the first sentence of their page. We don't need to put those sources on this article, because that would burden and distract from the more relevant content. Moreover, please engage with facts not fantasies about your actions. You denied editing the article, but you have actually edited to push your POV 4 times which is easily seen in your edit history. This is your final warning. JesseRafe (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who is not writing from a neutral point of view. I have added nothing to the article. No source has been provided for the information I removed. Those sources may exist (I'm not aware of them), but you have not cited them, so they are irrelevant. No consensus has been reached on this subject. If you want to discuss this further, I encourage you to do so on the article's talk page, not here. Rectipaedia (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No source? Explain, then, why you're also deleting a reference tag in the course of your edit warring. You are making the bold edit by removing material that was agreed upon per prior discussion. The burden is on you to get new consensus before you remove it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources do not describe the Proud Boys as fascist. If you want to establish a consensus on this issue, please participate on the article's talk page. Rectipaedia (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred is an administrator. They're not here to argue some point of content with you; rather, you should consider their comments a warning. Removing sourced material is blockable. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what he's here to do, he is in fact arguing a point of content with me. And he happens to be wrong. Unsourced content must be removed as per Wikipedia's policies. The description of the Proud Boys as a neo-fascist group has not been sourced. If such a source exists, it should be provided. If you or he happens to think that such a source exists, please provide it. Rectipaedia (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is the statement that you removed sourced, but there are further sources at the actual Proud Boys article. This has been discussed at the talk page before. The burden is on you, just like it was for the previous editors who tried to remove it, to demonstrate your case, not just to remove a sourced statement and say "it's not sourced". —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in the talk page, where you should be discussing this, and as I have already explained here, there is no source provided in this article that the Proud Boys are fascist. Sources which do not provide the information in question are not relevant. Only sources that actually back up a given statement count as sources for that statement, hence the word "source" meaning the origin of something. A source is not just any link appended to a statement. It has to actually be the source of the information, meaning where you got it from. Wikipedia does not count as a reliable source. Rectipaedia (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

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.

--Jorm (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]