User talk:JohnReed 1917

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss at Talk:Statue of Lenin (Seattle)[edit]

Can you go to Talk:Statue of Lenin (Seattle) and discuss the changes you'd like to make? I had a very hard time understanding the intent. I wanted to simply clean up typos but many of the changes were too garbled to decipher. Some changes were also inconsistent with sources, or used invalid citations. It would help if you explained more on the talk page, then we could carry out the edits. Please reply over at Talk:Statue of Lenin (Seattle), not here, so that the other editors who have worked on this page, not just us, can be included. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Statue of Lenin; in Seattle, bias and inaccuracies[edit]

What's on my mind is that the page was filled with historical bias and inaccuracies and despite my best efforts to correct them, yourself and others seem to be reverting then back to their inaccurate forms. Even so far as to return bold type where did not belong, complete in accuracy as to the name other location of The monuments construction insulation presentation and later removal. I could literally go on I'm fairly certain that someone here has a bias against communism and even though I have a certain bias for it I am trying very hard to be fair. I'm not praising anyone or changing anything to make it sound like it's being praised. I've added citations where they were needed and two people on here remove them. I added the names of the people who are being quoted and the names of the quotes removed. The page seems fine to you and others Maybe because you want the page to say certain things including going into a very long section on an inflammatory and derogatory quote without any citation concerning modern Russian aggression without any relation to the statue, Seattle, Lenin, Czechoslovakia, art, I could literally go on but considering that this entire part that I'm referring to was extremely white nationalist. I keep wondering why it's being put back in? It has no citation, and if it did, Putin in Ukraine has nothing to do with the monument to Lenin from the The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. And that is the proper name not communist Czechoslovakia which is horrifically biased and lamon. JohnReed 1917 (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I asked you above three times, please discuss this at Talk:Statue of Lenin (Seattle). If other editors besides us are involved, you might find that some of them would support or assist you. As it is, nobody but you and I are even reading this. I'd suggest discussing one thing at a time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019[edit]

Hello, I'm Dennis Bratland. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Statue of Lenin (Seattle), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

A google search result is not a citation. You're contradicting most of the cited sources on the page. See Wikipedia:Citing sources.

Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to User talk:Dennis Bratland can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did on Statue of Lenin (Seattle). This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

You're new at this and you don't understand how verifiability and citing sources works. If you'd take the time to discuss this with other editors at Talk:Statue of Lenin (Seattle), it can be resolved in a way that you will probably be satisfied with.

You are going to get yourself blocked from editing if you keep edit warring, making personal attacks, and harassing me on my talk page. Please seek the support of other editors. They are there but you have to speak to them. Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Statue of Lenin (Seattle) 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No need to stay upset, let me explain:[edit]

I'm preparing an article expected for the winter issues, and have been for a time. I avoided my citations first to see your reactions; which were predictably normal. Now that I included all the academic citations I had pre researched that even an ivy league university would accept; I'm now waiting to see if other's will again change unambiguous facts in my article.

I apologize for the need to see your reactions under confrontation; however, after the professional citations were added, I noticed the reversions to the inaccuracies stopped. I would be most interested in a few words as to why; upon seeing the proper citations, you stopped? In your opinion, how do you feel towards factual citations that you or others oppose on personal grounds? Could you explain your process or other's in deciding how many citations are required; or would you say the personal opinions matter more than citation? And if so, how many Working on Wikipedia would you guess will accept a heavily cited truth they personally disagree with? I'd actually like to possibly get permission to do a short online interview on your opinions and experiences. Apologies again for the rudeness, but it was important to find an active point and person. You fortunately filled the needs for the type of person I would like to interview. You were calm, than irritated, than enraged; naturally, but numerous grammatical corrections and other changes you did not revert; despite a clear aggravation.

My specialty is writing about sociology and experimental psychology. Behavior, etc. This wasn't a psychological test, but rather a crude way to find a subject passionate enough to become highly defensive, yet clear enough to see the facts in spite of emotional confrontation on a socio economic "hot topic"

My bio here is very real. My full name, publications, email and phone number. My credentials are with the US Press Corp as an independent contractor and journalist.

If you're interested, please feel free to send me an email. Others may interact to revert the points that were not in reasonable question. Your opinions on those changes over the next 3 weeks would be invaluable.

The Article; irrigardless, will be redacted to totally remove identifying information in the finished work. I am a credentialed journalist, and source protection is Paramount.

Now that the main changes, that were meant to expose any clear bias in the information editing community, are in place with citation ... As a technical advisor/interview subject, your views and opinions of how and why others are like to change the two academic facts would be appreciated, and a solid mention for your assistance; anonymously or not, will most certainly be mentioned well in the finished peice.

Thank you, and please understand the nature of guerilla journalism often requires unorthodox methodology. In seeking real reactions, I needed to be more than my normal smug self. That last part was light hearted joke; I'm unusually smug. And quite the clown at times.

Feel free to drop me an email text or call. I wish I could offer you compensation for your hopefully understanding of the situation, but if I could I wouldn't be a guerilla journalist.

I stopped because of the 3RR. If you scroll up slightly from your own narcissistic ranting, you'll see a warning template message from me laying all that out clearly. You do not listen. You do not read. You do not pay attention to what others are trying to tell you. That's the problem. I have no interest in further contact with someone who will not accept input from anybody else. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion involving you[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --— Maile (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.

TomStar81 (Talk) 20:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]