User talk:SK8RBOI

Yes, this is my sig!— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs)

Friends | Contributions | Perennial Sources

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with my contributions to date.

I have recently 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 any 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.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with my contributions to date.

I have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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 any 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.

Cleaned up

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SK8RBOI&oldid=893083948

October 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Parler. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Grayfell, and thank you for your belated welcome. I reverted the page in question only once and began a discussion about the changes on the Talk page. Any subsequent reversions were to preserve the content of the article while the discussion is resolved. Specifically, I believe that references to Pizzagate do not contribute to readers' understanding of the quote in question and only clutter the article. If you compare the changes you will see that all other edits from my last contribution were not reversions. Please undo your latest reversion and see the discussion on the talk page if you would like to weigh in.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 04:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The wording you have added is different from the prior status quo ("Alt-right activist and Trump supporter ...") so it is not accurate for you to say you are preserving the content. Follow WP:BRD and gain consensus for changes before restoring again. Grayfell (talk) 04:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell: As you will notice upon viewing the aforementioned discussion, referring to Posobiec as a correspondent of OANN was deemed sufficient to all involved parties. If you would like to include the reference to Pizzagate, which was not decided upon and which I believe is unnecessary, please first revert your latest changes and contribute to the discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 05:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue to discuss on the article's talk page if you wish. For various reason, I do not think your edit was appropriate. I feel no obligation to revert at this time. Grayfell (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell: Very well, as is your prerogative, same as mine. Would you care to share some of those reasons, so that I may preempt or at minimum avoid them in the future?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 05:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]