User talk:Martdj

Welcome!

Hello, Martdj, 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. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

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! —Paleo Neonate – 05:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important message

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 COVID-19, broadly construed. 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.

—Paleo Neonate – 05:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Martin Kulldorff. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2023 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Martdj reported by User:MrOllie (Result: ). Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Martin Kulldorff) for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Aoidh (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Aoidh (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is lame. Are you referring to my statement about @Bbb23 showing disgraceful behaviour? This admin blocked a user indefinitely for no valid reason and then tries to hide that fact by not telling the user why he's blocked, like he's obliged to, and keeping him blocked. If a person shows this type of behaviour, a personal attack on his behaviour is completely warranted, and you are in the wrong protecting him.

I see now that he claims this: "About a month later I indeffed Michael for continuing to edit-war at the same article." Fact is, Michael did no such thing. He was simply trying to reach consensus on the talk page and got reported by user Bon courage, because that user ran out of arguments. I react to injustice when I see it, and this is clearly a case of injustice and should serve as a warning for any user of good faith who wants to start contributing to Wikipedia. It's clear to me that Wikipedia has fallen prey to a group of people who seem to have no interest in keeping Wikipedia independent, neutral AND trustworthy.

I was willing to help fix Wikipedia, as I've seen many blatant errors in articles that fall within my area of expertise, but if this is the way admins react to criticism and protect editors that come complaining that a user wants to fix a page, based on facts, where that fix goes against their personal beliefs, I will simply explain to people that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for any information that has any political sensitivity and advise them to not donate to a project that actively spreads misinformation and is preventing subject matter experts of repairing these errors. Martdj (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]