User talk:Jwk5020

May 2024[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Chaka Fattah have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Chaka Fattah was changed by Jwk5020 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.901205 on 2024-05-30T21:45:49+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits, such as those to Chaka Fattah, appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to talk. This is the reason this site is no longer trustworthy. Selective edits to preserve politicians on one side of the aisle and then banning people who call out the bias - great job Wikipedia. Jwk5020 (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you site the inaccuracy in my edit? You still have not done that. Jwk5020 (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're insisting on putting heavily negative information about a living person in the opening sentence of an article, and your own words, most glaringly here, make it clear you are doing so for the purposes of making a point for political reasons. That is a serious BLP problem. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sent several examples of that standard being applied. Someone removed the Trump reference supposedly, but I guarantee you it will be back there in short order. I'll send you another note when it's back on that page when it's in the first sentence. Jwk5020 (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that happens it will be the result of the consensus of that RFC, the one you participated in, and thus a community consensus. Based on how many comments there are already less than four hours in, it will probably be a very very large conversation and thus a solid consensus. A single editor who's never contributed on any other subject and only signed up today insisting that they are right and are familiar enough with how Wikipedia does things to know what the "standard" is, especially when one of the few examples they give of that claimed standard isn't even correct, isn't remotely comparable. It would not demonstrate what you seem to be implying it would.
If you were intending to demonstrate in your latest comment that you weren't editing a BLP article for the purposes of making a point for political reasons, I'm afraid you're continuing to do the opposite of that. Egsan Bacon (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The standard is uplift Democrats instead of fair dissemination of information. Suppress people who point that out. Appreciate you clearing that up for me though :) Jwk5020 (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if you could have a read of WP:CONSPIRACY and WP:AGF. Firestar464 (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact you consider treating both sides with an even hand as a conspiracy theory proves my point. Thank you for sharing that Firestar. Jwk5020 (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm referring to your belief that there is some sort of organized effort to suppress you. It is also strongly worth noting that the addition of "convicted felon" is being heavily debated. Firestar464 (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with me. It is my observation that there is a clear unbalance in how this site treats the biographies of Republicans vs. Democrats. I tried to point this out and an army of bots and editors comes to preserve that. I read your user page and it seems that you take this site pretty seriously. Are you OK with this being the standard? Jwk5020 (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there are are many, many parties to the RfC who oppose putting the words "convicted felon" in the first sentence because of due weight issues. Many of them are established contributors and are certainly not being "suppressed." Firestar464 (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]