User talk:DabYeetDab

DabYeetDab, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi DabYeetDab! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Korra, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please read WP:LQ specifically EvergreenFir (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about that. :) --DabYeetDab (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop edit warring at Gina Carano

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm not sure if you saw my messages on Talk:Gina Carano, so I thought I'd reach out to you here. There's an ongoing and relatively active RfC on the talk page about whether to include the Criticism section, and if so how it should be included. Your actions right now seem to be in violation of the edit warring policies, and it would be best if, rather than continuing to discuss the material through edit summaries when you repeatedly remove the Criticism section, you take your comments to the talk page. Removing the section over and over is not likely to get you the outcome you want, and it just ends up adding a bunch of friction to the discussion process. It's also a lot harder for other users to see the points you are making. It's really easy to add messages to the talk page, and please let me know on my talk page if you have any formatting/etiquette questions. Srey Sros^talk 19:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not that I am doing. What I'm doing is removing the parts of the section that blatantly do not belong there. There is no such thing as a "black lives matter" account, and Gina blocking Twitter users does not make her racist, so putting it there is clearly meant to push a negative bias, and also having a Parler account itself is nothing "controversial" but putting it in that section gives the implication that it is something that is bad, especially as NO other context was given, so that is VERY clearly a negative bias and is not neutral in any way.DabYeetDab (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I wasn't clear in my original message, but it's edit-warring regardless of whether or not you're right. From the policy page: An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. The way to make changes like the ones you want to is to persuade others that the changes are justified on the talk page. Given that you've had to restore your preferred version several times, evidently there isn't consensus that your edits are justified. If everyone who thought their edits were right just edit-warred them into the article, we'd never get anything done. Srey Sros^talk 20:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Not by youtube rumour mills, internet fanclubs or your personal feelings. The sections you keep persistently removing are all prolerly sourced, NPOV material. Regardless of whether you think Gina Carano is right or not, or whether this controversies surrounding her are notale or not, it does not change the fact that her controversies has been the single most notable thing about her in the past months, and have been covered by reliable sources. Reliable sources decide whether something is controversial or not. Wikipedia only reports on what reliable sources say. And this includes her opening a Parler account. If reliable sources report that Gina Carano stirred controversy by opening an account on the far right media platform Parler, then that is what wikipedia will report on. If you don't understand how the site rules work, and persist in removing content just because it casts your favorite actress in a bad light, then you are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to push YOUR OWN BIAS on others. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that isn't even true. You cannot slap a statement like "She opened a Parler account" with NO context other than she just HAS on, and label it a "controversy," because then, you are applying a negative connotation under something that is in itself, nothing important. Media sources saying that a Parler account is "controversial" does NOT mean we must take that as a fact and put it on here, because when we evaluate that, those sources are very clearly pushing a political agenda and applying it to this scenario where this is nothing political or "controversial" about it. There were no "controversial" parler posts of her, and trying to say that simply having a Parler account is enough to be a "controversy" is EXTEREMELEY negatively biased. DabYeetDab (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Media sources saying that a Parler account is "controversial" does NOT mean we must take that as a fact and put it on here..." actually that is EXACTLY what we do, as long as those are considered reliable sources. "...because when we evaluate that..." we don't. We go by reliable sources. "...those sources are very clearly pushing a political agenda..." if that's what you believe, then find reliable sources that debunk it. It's that simple. You have failed to provide one argument to back your position. Everythjng you said here are your subjective feelings. That will not stand up to scrutiny. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gina Carano; 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. - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice: biographies of living persons and post-1992 American politics

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 shown interest in articles about 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.

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 shown interest in post-1992 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.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Gina Carano, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gina Carano; 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. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

You have been blocked from editing the page Gina Carano for persistent disruptive editing. You are still able to edit any other page. 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 ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]