User talk:TalentedTwin

September 2020

Hello, I'm Motevets. I noticed that you recently removed content from George Floyd protests without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. — motevets (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at One America News Network, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

Doug Weller talk 15:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020: final warning

Removing an extremely well-sourced statement here, leaving the sources themselves hanging in the air, is tendentious and disruptive editing. I notice that in your latest previous edit, you removed a big swathe of also well-sourced content from George Floyd protests, as well as some well-sourced text from Shooting of Kenneth Chamberlain Sr. Removing facts you don't like seems to be the only thing you do here. One more disruptive edit and you will be blocked from editing. Bishonen | tålk 12:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice: biographies of living persons

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Hello, I'm Sangdeboeuf. Your recent edit(s) to the page Gina Carano appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Your recent editing history at Progressive soul 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 12:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Progressive soul

Hi. In regards to your removal of this content, you are overlooking the point the cited author is making, which is that R&B experienced greater exposure among white listeners because of the radio exposure it received in the Northern U.S. No one is saying or inferring that it had received no radio play in the South. But the implication of Jim Crow racism and more intense segregation in the South, and the North's historically heightened advance in industry and cultural diversity, makes the music's migration to the North crucial to the narrative this article is creating, which is about the music's transformation into what would be the broadly diversified genre of rock music. That being said, if you have any further concerns with this content, start a discussion at the article's talk page. As you can see from the numerous warnings at your talk page, and the helpful guidance links at the top of mine, there are clearly more appropriate ways of going about your changes and issues than you appear to have been doing for the past year or so. Please, for everyone's sake, grow up. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 00:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Unbiased"

Wikipedia does not claim to be unbiased, because that is impossible- everyone has biases. Wikipedia articles present sources to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors in determining what to believe. Wikipedia does not claim to be the truth, see WP:TRUTH, it only claims that what is presented can be verified. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to mediabiasfactcheck.com, it states that medium.com and goodmenproject.com (the two links that are at the end of the sentence that contains “extreme right viewpoints” in the wikipedia article on Quora) are left biased.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-good-men-project/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/medium/

The inclusion of the statement (extreme right viewpoints) is not truly verifiable according to your statement that wikipedia only accepts verifiable sources. The sourced websites should be first checked on mediabiasfactcheck.com or some other major trustworthy fact check website before being accepted by wikipedia. This is one of many wordings in wikipedia that has sources which are biased and therefore should not be considered verifiable. TalentedTwin (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]