User talk:Pandy Sydney

Welcome!

Hello, Pandy Sydney, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Longhair\^talk 20:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Tim Blair. 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 be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 lead to a block. Thank you. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

3 December 2018

Hi Tornado Chaser.

I first noticed my edits were being wholsesale deleted on 18 September 2018. I immediately opened a talk and invited discussion. I did not receive any response from the other editor, who continued to remove my edits. When the content was last removed and other edit began shouting in their "edit summary" I again opened a conversation, this time on the other editor's talk page. I did not receive a response. I'm not clear why I am being cautioned for war-editing when I opened a talk for discussion more than two months ago but did not get any engagement from the other editor.

I have today re-inserted the material and expanded the detail in my talk.

The reasons given in the editor's edit summary do not make sense. The other editor believes the incident should be removed from the BLP's history because they consider it to be a "minor kerfuffle". I don't agree that this is a reason to remove the material The subject is a prominent journalist in a mainstream newspaper whose work was accepted by a Court for consideration against Hate Speech laws. This is unusual in the journalism profession. One five other journalists have had their publications brought before a Court for hate speech. I do not agree with the other editor that the material should be removed because it amounts to a "minor kerfuffle" in their subjective opinion.

The other editor again removed my edits, citing the reason "you have to understand that Blair is a humourist in the 'haha, only serious' kind of way. I do not understand what this means, or how it effects Wikipedia as a source of information. This appears to me to be an edit based on subjective opinion, not facts or policy.

I checked my edit several times against BLP, PRIMARY, NPOV, and TONE and FOCUS policies. I have verified the source quality. I have been careful not to draw information from Mr Blair's testimony, from trial transcripts or from other Court records. The other sources are reputable secondary news organisations (certainly, higher quality than rightwingnews.com - which was used as a source by the other editor on other parts of the page). I have actively sought out other POV's and other viewpoints on this issue in the media. I could not find any, but will include if any such publications appear going forward.

I remain unclear why I am being cautioned for war-editing when I initiated a talk and the other user did not respond, but continued to rm the entire edits, giving different reasons each time.

Discretionary sanctions notice

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 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.

Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• For your information, new rules now apply to this article and are described here: Talk:Tim_Blair#Imposition_of_discretionary_sanctions. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)