User talk:Nearestdexterity

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Nearestdexterity, 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! Bisbis (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EDit warring[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at ACT! for America. 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. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to need something more specific out of you. These are the rules I'm following with my edits of that article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources

What rules are you following? You've asserted those sources are unreliable and not independent. They're not independent, true. That's not in any violation of the rules, as I've interpreted them from the abovementioned link. As far as unreliable, well unreliable about what? I've said it before, I'm not adjudicating the validity of their stated positions. I'm stating what their stated positions are along with a direct citation. They may not be reliable for predicting the market, but they're reliable for the claim I'm using them to make, which is merely stating the positions ACT themselves purport to hold. I sincerely hope you're not objecting at some sort of partisan level. I've said I take no sides. I hope I pass the purity test required to make legitimate edits around here.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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:Nearestdexterity reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: ). Thank you. GAB^gab 02:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at ACT! for America[edit]

You have been blocked from editing 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 below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In need of arbitration[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nearestdexterity (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not denying I did those revisions, but my posts were repeatedly and illegitimately deleted. All my citations were legitimate in the context I was using them. How about the burden of proof being on the people deleting my edits? If they think I'm in violation of the rules regarding the citations, they need to explain how, and not just assert it authoritatively. The only party defending their position on this is me, and it got me banned! For what it's worth, yesterday I added that the SPLC was discredited. Someone deleted it, I asked why, and they said it was because it was just my opinion. Well, I included a citation showing they libeled someone and had to pay millions in restitution. But I understood their point, just because they'd been discredited once doesn't mean they're discredited in perpetuity. I therefore relented on that point and let the original version stand. Why can't we have an intellectually honest exchange about this, like I did yesterday? Have I instead mistakenly drawn the ire of some partisan crowd? Or am I just a wiki noob and misinterpreting wiki's source rules? Nearestdexterity (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

From your statement below, you have no intent to adhere to our community's editing policy, nor to be part of this community at all, so there's no reason to unblock. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 05:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

See WP:EW for the edit warring policy. Regarding your email: it's not up to me (as an admin) to figure out who is more likely to be right, or decide what wording should go in the article. It is up to the local editors to try to reach agreement. One person who just tries to override everyone else is unlikely to get anywhere. If there is something you don't understand about our policies, ask an experienced editor. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Building consensus is a thing of the past (one only has to look to modern politics to confirm this). The standard needs to be accuracy. All statements and ideas need to hold up to scrutiny and peer review. If anyone can get two of their ideologically-aligned buddies to entirely gum up the site by preventing legitimate edits, this website is broken and I decline to participate in it further. If the standard remains the tyranny of the majority, no honest exchanges can be had and any unpopular truth is damned. I hate popularity contests, and reject the notion that's how encyclopedias should be compiled. I therefore renounce my brief membership.

Thank you,

Nearestdexterity

Nearestdexterity (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]