User talk:NewsYouCanUse2018

Welcome![edit]

Hello, NewsYouCanUse2018, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Fight the New Drug did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Praxidicae (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Fight the New Drug, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Natureium (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. See BRD for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Natureium (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to use reliable sources, despite Natureium attempts to defend Fight the New Drug's reputation. For example, the IRS publishes the salaries of executives in non-profits, yet that citation was removed. There is no reason to doubt its veracity. https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/263550143_201712_990_2018082415616444.pdf NewsYouCanUse2018 (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:NewsYouCanUse2018 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Not a violation). Thank you. Praxidicae (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Verification of my addition of factual national and primary sources is provided there.

I'm just repeating this here for the record, where edit warring is concerned, the correctness of your actual edits is completely irrelevant. All that is considered is whether or not you were edit warring, which you undeniably were. You did not technically violate the three revert rule but I still could have blocked you for edit warring even without breaching that rule. Since you are such a new user I have opted instead to issue a final warning about edit warring in the hope that you will instead follow WP:BRD in the future. You'll find it takes more time but leads to better results overall for the project than just reverting. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your combative approach to editing and other aspects of Wikiepdia will not serve you well. Please don't accuse other users of vandalism unless they are clearly acting in bad faith, not just making edits you disagree with. Please don't make frivolous, seemingly revenge-motivated reports to admin noticeboards. You are very close to being blocked be me or another admin, if you don't heed all the advice that's been given to you, like now, it's more or less inevitable. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Talk:Fight_the_New_Drug while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Praxidicae (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NewsYouCanUse2018. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Beeblebrox (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]