User talk:The Hammering Hammer

Welcome!

Hi The Hammering Hammer! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an 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.

Doug Weller talk 08:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The Washington Post

I've removed your addition to The Washington Post and opened a thread on the talk page to facilitate discussion and form a consensus. I've explained my rationale for reverting your edit there.

Also, I've noticed that you've been marking almost all of your edits as minor. The "minor" flag should only be used for cosmetic edits that don't substantially change the content of a page, such as correcting misspellings, fixing formatting issues, and minor copyedits. Edits such as this that add, remove, or substantially alter content should not be marked as minor.

Thanks, — SamX [talk · contribs] 18:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Hi The Hammering Hammer! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Jasper Deng (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Constitution Party (United States), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Jon Voight. Voight did not mention the second amendment in the video. — SamX [talk · contribs] 19:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. 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 Death of a Nation (2018 film), you may be blocked from editing. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

A word of caution

You've been making a lot of contentious, poorly sourced changes to articles about US politics. That topic area suffers from widespread POV-pushing from editors on both sides of the political spectrum, and is subject to contentious topics procedures as a result. Many of the edits you've made violate Wikipedia's guidelines on original research (such as this one) and undue weight (such as when you inserted a cherry-picked Trump quote here), to name a few. This edit that you made to Jon Voight violated Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by introducing an unsourced, controversial claim to the article. Simply put, a lot of the edits you've been making are problematic and have been reverted. If you continue to make edits like this, you are likely to be sanctioned. Under contentious topics procedures, uninvolved Administrators have the authority to impose topic bans and other restrictions on editors who have created disruption within designated topic areas, one of which is US politics from 1992 to present. To avoid such a result, I would personally encourage you to think carefully before making such changes. Article talk pages often contain past discussions related to similar edits to the ones you might be considering. Reviewing the talk page and associated archives for such discussions is good practice, and bold, sweeping changes to articles subject contentious topics procedures should generally be discussed there first.

As a more general note, your user page suggests that your main goal here is to end what you perceive to be ideological bias on Wikipedia. You're far from the first person to attempt this. Wikipedia articles are the collective result of a great deal of work, often by hundreds of different editors. As you might imagine, many of these editors have radically different viewpoints on what is and isn't suitable article content. Chances are, whatever changes you're trying to make have already been discussed exhaustively, and articles about highly controversial topics are usually written how they are for a very good reason. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Editors who come here to right great wrongs generally aren't viewed favorably by the community, and their attempts to shape Wikipedia to fit their point of view are almost always unsuccessful.

Thanks for your time, and I hope you take this message into consideration. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Please note that there is no support on Wikipedia, either in policy or in practice, for your opinion that no article on an American political party should includes the party's ideology. You have been removing this information from various articles about right-wing parties, and this editing is not justified. Your editing is disruptive and indicates that you are editing with a specific point of view, and attempting to skew those articles in the direction of your POV. Please stop editing in this manner. Failure to do so will result in your being reported to admins for possible sanctioning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

There has been consensus on this, that’s why the Democratic-Republican Party, the Federalist Party, etc. had their position removed. Obviously I didn’t mean to be disruptive, I was just adhering to what I THOUGHT was the Wikipedia consensus. If it isn’t, thanks for letting me know. The Hammering Hammer (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Those articles both have ideology sections in their infoboxes. I don't know where you got the idea there was a consensus to remove them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Continued political POV warring

You were warned on March 22 not to WP:Right great wrongs about politics, but just a few days ago you were on talk:communism trying to prove how EVIL it (or your one, extremely narrow understanding of it) is by quoting poetry Marx wrote as a teenager. I’m going to be blunt: have no competence in this area and I recommend you refrain from editing politics ENTIRELY unless you extensively study up on both Wikipedia policy and academic political literature i.e. not WP:FOXNEWS Dronebogus (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Your user page is also questionable. Users are given broad leeway with userspace if they’re otherwise productive, but your problems are 1) you are walking on thin ice in regards to being “productive” as already mentioned, and 2) stating you “hate” broad groups of people is pretty much totally unacceptable unless virtually nobody likes them (i.e. holocaust deniers). Dronebogus (talk) 06:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I've removed "communists" from the "hate" list per WP:POLEMIC. I have my doubts whether "end ideological Wikipedian bias" is acceptable, although it certainly gives insight into this editor's POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you should maybe have left it, as potential evidence of the user’s stubbornness. Dronebogus (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I thought about that, but it will always be there in the history of the page, in case it is needed for evidence of POV behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I have made my anti-communist stance clear: I removed socialists and progressives as I understood more people are both, although I disagree with their political position. Wikipedia is supposed to need a neutral point of view to be applied to. However, I have noticed more and more of a left-wing bias in these pages, e.g. the Donald Trump article: Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, and many as misogynistic. I have no idea if this is true or not: however, to say this without providing a source (which it doesn’t) is wrong. The fact you have come to my pages, removed things without my permission, is a blatant violation of my personal rights on this page. Expand your point, explain to me about how anti-communism, and my stance, is wrong and violates POV. But somehow, the statement, "the concept of connecting disparate killings to the status of the communist states which committed them and the concept of trying to ascribe common causes and factors to them have both been supported and criticized by the academic community. Some academics view it as an indictment of communism as an ideology, while other academics view it as being overly simplistic and they also view it as being rooted in anti-communism. Instead, some academics attribute the causes of the killings to either the political systems or the leaders of the communist states. There is also debate over whether or not the famines which occurred during the rule of communist states can be considered mass killings. Mass killings which were committed by communist states have been compared to killings which were committed by other types of states" is NOT biased (which it is: Wikipedia also doesn’t provide sources). Of course, I doubt you’ll be able to answer. I’d like a fluent answer, and not one that says "Real communism has never been instilled". Communism is an evil ideology, and to act in such defense of it is disgusting.

If you want to, block me. Perhaps that will just prove my point. The Hammering Hammer (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The passages that you refer to from Donald Trump and Mass killings under communist regimes are both supported by reliable sources, just not in the lead section. Per MOS:LEAD, statements made in the lead section of an article don't need inline citations as long as they're stated elsewhere in the article with inline citations to reliable sources. Your claims that the articles are biased also don't hold much water; Wikipedia is meant to summarize what is reported in reliable sources, and the articles do just that. If you want to convince someone, you'll need to provide specific examples of why you think the articles are biased and what can be done to change that. I'd recommend against doing so, however; your edits to articles related to politics and philosophy have been disruptive and you're likely to garner further negative scrutiny if you continue to edit in these topic areas.

Your assertions that communism is evil are clear evidence of your own POV. For example, Wikipedia doesn't describe Fascism—which is a considerably less mainstream ideology than communism—as evil. Given your user page and your editing history, it seems that you are trying to right great wrongs by editing here. Your above comment also suggests a battleground mentality and borders on a personal attack. You've now been warned by three different users that your edits are tendentious and unhelpful. I'll be blunt: If you want to continue contributing here, you'll need to completely change your mindset and editing habits. As I've alluded to previously, your current approach is one that has been tried countless times before, and it will cause you a great deal of grief if you continue down that road. I'd recommend that you take a step back to think about why you're here and what you hope to accomplish by editing Wikipedia. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 23:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I’m this close to sending you to WP:ANI. If you keep doubling down on your paradoxical stance of “Wikipedia needs to be neutral by being anti-communist” then I’m going to have report WP:IDHT. The community really doesn’t have the patience anymore for these doublethink-based NPOV arguments. It’s not remotely novel, it doesn’t work, and it helps no-one. Dronebogus (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Reverted edits

I’ve reverted your recent edits to US politics because you have established WP:CIR problems in this area. Provide a reliable source if you would like to re-add the information, or point to a mention further down the article Dronebogus (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Understand the edit to revert the "balanced budget" sentence, as I didn’t provide a source (I actually found one, but it was outdated). However, to the Conservatism in the United States section on "opposing communism and labor unions", as it’s hard to call communism a policy rather than a system, I think the term supporting anti-communism is probably better. The Hammering Hammer (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

“Supporting anti-communism” is a double negative. You’re basically just saying they “support opposing communism” which is the same as just “opposing communism” Dronebogus (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thats true, but the "communism" sentence links to the page anti-communism in itself. The Hammering Hammer (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

For the exact reason I gave. It sounds bad in prose form, but we have the magic of hyperlinks Dronebogus (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Your userpage, again

You’ve already been warned by multiple users that your userpage is needlessly WP:POLEMIC, and your edits to politics in general are under scrutiny. You really shouldn’t double down on the WP:SOAP right now, or ever. Dronebogus (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Please note that WP:UP#GOALS forbids user pages from containing:

• Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia.
• Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc.

and that WP:POLEMIC forbids user pages to contain:

• Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia...

Much of the material on your user page is in violation of these mandatory policies. Please remove everything that is in violation, or I shall be forced to nominate your user page for deletion at WP:Miscellany for deletion, where the community will determine what is to be done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:The Hammering Hammer

User:The Hammering Hammer, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Hammering Hammer and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:The Hammering Hammer during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)