User talk:Havanananana

November 2020[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Jennifer Rubin (columnist). 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 lose their editing privileges on that page. 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 result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. S0091 (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New message from S0091[edit]

Hello, Havanananana. You have new messages at S0091's talk page.
Message added 22:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

S0091 (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New message from S0091[edit]

Hello, Havanananana. You have new messages at S0091's talk page.
Message added 00:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

S0091 (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits on "Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election"[edit]

I edited the case Pearson v. Kemp to read like this, adding information about the case as described by other sources. The way the description of the case stood, it relied solely on a primary source document. You changed the description back: "removed the edits of focus on Dominion as this is a very broad complaint. Also Dominion's rebuttal is not part of the lawsuit itself as Dominion is not a defendant."

I added information about Dominion based on the following sources.

I don't think Dominion should necessarily be the focus of the description of the case, but it might be at least worth a mention as part of the substance of the case, especially if some generally reliable sources are describing the lawsuit that way.

"The two cases have similar themes of problems linked to voting machines, mail-in ballots and deceased Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez." (Bloomberg)
"Plaintiffs, Georgia voters, allege that election software and hardware from Dominion Voting Systems, which was purportedly developed by Venezuelans to manipulate votes in favor of Hugo Chavez, led to a fraudulent ballot-stuffing campaign in Forsyth, Spalding, Cherokee, Hall, and Barrow Counties. Plaintiffs allege that the state's use of Dominion violated the Election Code and the Fourteenth Amendment by processing "defective" ballots and seek as remedy an injunction against transmitting Georgia's certified results." (Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project)
'A significant portion of the suit addresses claims that the Dominion Voting Systems software and voting machines used in Georgia and 16 other states were “created and run by domestic and foreign actors” to render ballot stuffing practices invisible. “Smartmatic and Dominion were founded by foreign oligarchs and dictators to ensure computerized ballot-stuffing and vote manipulation to whatever level was needed to make certain Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez never lost another election,” the lawsuit claims. “Notably, Chavez ‘won’ every election thereafter.”' (WSB-TV Atlanta)
"The company is not a defendant in the lawsuits; governors and local election officials are listed. But allegations about it were scattered throughout, with mentions on 30 pages of the 104-page Georgia lawsuit." (From Business Insider, for which there is no consensus on the reliability of)

Please let me know your thoughts. Wdougs (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020[edit]

Hi Havanananana! 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. —C.Fred (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]