User talk:CoopDEtat19

Welcome!

Hello, CoopDEtat19, 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:

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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 18:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Gavin McInnes. 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. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I understand all of this, but I feel that the all of the reverted edits are politically motivated. Mr. McIness is a conservative and his wife is Native American... I feel that the omittion of this fact (with a reliable source/Gawker) is because Mr. McIness is on the right, and having a Native American wife doesn't fit the shoe. I'm definitely suspicious of all of this and I did inform Mr. McIness of this. CoopDEtat19 (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all fine but you have to convince your fellow editors of that (myself included) at Talk:Gavin McInnes before you add the content again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Fair enough... I just thought it was some troll messing around. CoopDEtat19 (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Philando Castile

Your recent editing history at Shooting of Philando Castile shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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.
Wikipedia follows sources. If you want to discuss, go to article talk, or you may be blocked without further warning. zzz (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Jeremy Mardis

Hello, I reverted your edit here because it didn't appear to be constructive. Mardis's race was not a central element of the shootings covered in reliable sources, and so it doesn't make sense to mention it in the lead of the article on his death. In the future, you should refrain from making unproductive edits to unrelated articles as a way to make a point about a dispute. Read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point Nblund^talk 02:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So... leaving the word "black" on pages where the roles were reversed is? If there's going to be a standard, then the word "black" needs to be taken out of pages such as Philandro Castille's. It's a double-edged sword, is it not? Also, omitting "white" and not "black" is a violation of pillar 2... is it not? CoopDEtat19 (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a double edged sword or a violation of NPOV. I explained why in my response to your statement on the Philando Castile page here. Nblund^talk 22:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Important notifications regarding 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 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 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.

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 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.

--Neutrality^talk 21:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deceptive edit summaries

Do not make edits and then leave deceptive edit summaries. In this series of edits and again here you replaced well-sourced content, directly supported by the cited source, with material not supported by a cited source, then used the edit summary "Remove excess verbiage, replaced with factual verbiage in accordance to reference points." That's deceptive, plain and simple. And in the first edit, you removed the New York Times (a high-quality source) with the Epoch Times (a low-quality source). Knock it off, please. Neutrality^talk 21:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

You do realize that a good chunk of what you erased based on your own biases we're just paragraphs and reference points from other parts of the same article. Your username should not be "neutrality" when you're practicing everything but. User:CoopDEtat19

Wrongful and bias editing

Ask yourself this question before I present this higher up the pecking order... What makes one site better than another, when neither have been found as fake news? CoopDEtat19 (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Rebel Media; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Edits referenced: diff, diff. Leviv ich 04:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gavin McInnes; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Edits referenced: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. If you believe an article is not adhering to a neutral point of view, discuss it on the talk page instead of edit warring. You are also not properly describing your edits in edit summaries, which has been previously brought to your attention on your talk page. A proper edit summary would be something like, "changed 'far-right' to 'libertarian'" rather than "added context". As a previous editor asked you, "please knock it off". Thank you. Leviv ich 04:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Marcus Rashford, 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. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

My bad... thanks for the heads up. CoopDEtat19 (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Bruce Prichard. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. StaticVapor message me! 14:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at List of fake news websites 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 BRD 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. MarnetteD|Talk 14:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chill

Bro... That's a personal picture of mine. Why you taking it down, that violates

WP:BURDEN

The WP:BURDEN of gaining consensus for a proposed addition lies upon the editor who proposes its inclusion. You don't have consensus for your proposed addition to List of fake news websites, and without that consensus, it's disruptive and tendentious to continue edit-warring after two separate users have removed it and explained their opposition. If you think the addition has merit, it's your responsibility to open a thread on the talk page and gain consensus for its inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Overstepping Boundaries

It is clear in both the Mueller report and NBC News that what BuzzFeed reported was an outright and intentional lie, likely motivated by personal political bias. There is an issue when two users opinions are more important than actual factual articles. CoopDEtat19 (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please show in the NBC News article where it says that what BuzzFeed reported was an outright and intentional lie, likely motivated by personal political bias. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's classic original research. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous warnings

You told User:MarnetteD "I've been threatened with this type of band before, but it's always ended in the one making the threat being banned or locked out of Wikipedia". Except for one editor who may not be with us anymore, the editors who have warned you and are still around seem to be User:Levivich, User:Neutrality and User:Signedzzz. I don't see any banned or "locked out" editors. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}.

Your pattern of editing and the many warnings here on your talk page are what led me to this block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cullen328, I disagree with this users conduct, approach and edits but an indef seems a bit harsh, especially for a first block. The record does show good edits in other areas. The best course IMO is a discretionary sanctions warning on American Politics and then if that isn't followed blocks etc. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hell in a Bucket, DS notices were posted on Feb 12 (scroll up). My 3RR warning was the next day, which was two months ago. Since then they've kept edit warring on multiple articles. Two just from today: there's Bruce Prichard's middle name and occupation, plus List of fake news websites. Plus unwarranted notices to three separate editors about "overstepping boundaries". This editor is taking up too much of other editors' time with edit warring and disruption. Most of all, they have not changed their behavior in response to many warning over several months. And it's all in DS areas. In my view, this behavior was block-worthy two months ago. While indef isn't the standard for a first EW offense, I can't imagine 24 or 48hrs is going to make any difference. Bearing in mind that "indefinite" doesn't mean "forever", I kind of agree with Cullen's implicit suggestion that what is needed here is some reflection and a thoughtful unblock request that will show that this problematic behavior will stop, however long that takes. Otherwise, there will be a day or two or week time out, and we'll be back here again (as we were two months ago). Leviv ich 19:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but doesn't discretionary sanctions also allow for topic bans in that area? If there was a broadly construed topic ban on American politics until such a time it wasn't nec would still allow for other edits. Just my two cents and something I saw out of balance for a person with no block log. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse what Levivich says here, Hell in a Bucket. I did not block only for edit warring but for an ongoing and varied pattern of disruptive and tendentious editing that included edit warring. If this person wants to resume editing, then they need to commit to abandoning this pattern of behavior, and their unblock request needs to be convincing. I understand that you would have taken a different approach. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some diffs for any admin who may review an unblock request: What concerns me is not just edit warring, it's edit warring and making posts in a hidden comment and on a talk page asserting their version is correct (suggesting an "I'm always right" mentality, rather than "let's discuss and come to consensus"). There's the comment, after being reverted: "Why you taking it down, that violates Wikipedia code as well. Two can play that game." (which, ten minutes later, was removed). This reveals that the editor thinks of reverting as a game to be played. It shows they they've totally ignored all previous edit warring warnings. Finally, there's "I know Conrad personally, and he asked me to fix up the page", which suggests a COI, as was pointed out by another editor in an edit summary. That should probably be explored to make sure all applicable policies are being complied with. All of this is just from this week. I do agree with HIAB's major point that this is a first block and it isn't an irredeemable editor or an irremediable situation. I hope the editor realizes where they went wrong and makes a successful unblock request, and continues contributing to the encyclopedia. Leviv ich 19:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is now a CheckUser block.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]