User talk:Oldgreg100

October 2022

Hello, I'm Andrevan. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andre🚐 16:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe it was a mistake. Please explain your decision Oldgreg100 (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a mistake, please do not make these edits again. Andre🚐 17:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain so I know your reasoning. Oldgreg100 (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You removed sourced information with an invalid rationale. You appear to be trying to clean up the article to remove any negative information about the subject. That is not NPOV. Andre🚐 17:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were consistent with other war vets Wikipedia pages. I cited the sources and added a lot of useful information. Please, I’d like for your explain Oldgreg100 (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not true. I left all that information in “politics” section. Whoever made those edits added them both in his “politics” and his brief bio. Oldgreg100 (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a special policy for war vets. He's a current political candidate. You removed a significant portion of information. Please do not do that again. Andre🚐 17:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my rationale invalid? Please explain. My attempt was to keep this page consistent with other military veterans pages as well as other politicians pages Oldgreg100 (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how it works here. Andre🚐 17:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not undo my edits again. I removed the duplicate information on him being described as “far right” and duplicate information on his views on Biden-trump election. The information was not removed from the article- the duplicate was Oldgreg100 (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss your changes on the talk page instead of Wikipedia:Edit warring Andre🚐 17:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“This is how it works?” What’s that supposed to mean? Please explain. Oldgreg100 (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you plenty of links to our policies Andre🚐 17:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed on the talk page for over a year and nothing has been done because “this is how it works” Oldgreg100 (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have given me links to policies that describe neutrality, you however never explain to me how the article is neutral in a state it’s in and how my edits weren’t Oldgreg100 (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalizing that page Oldgreg100 (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Andre🚐 17:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing it too Andre haha Oldgreg100 (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Oldgreg100, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Andre🚐 17:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022 [2]

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. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:20, 30 October 2022 (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:Oldgreg100 reported by User:Andrevan (Result: ). Thank you. Andre🚐 17:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Donald C. Bolduc. 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Oldgreg100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i was just trying to keep Wikipedia politically neutral. I removed some duplicate information on a Senate candidate’s page as urged by many on the talk page. Please let’s keep politics out of Wikipedia and give everyone a fair shake Oldgreg100 (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit-warring (WP:EW) but don't address this in your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2022 (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.

No idea what that is. But good to know Oldgreg100 (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you'll be blocked for at least 72 hours, suggest you review some of the helpful policy links so you do not get blocked again when you return. Andre🚐 17:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh how thoughtful Andre. You’re making me blush Oldgreg100 (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why haven’t you been blocked? You did the same thing. Reversed my edit 4 times Oldgreg100 (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect Andre🚐 17:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3 times? Oldgreg100 (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed some of that helpful policy and it said three revert rule in 72 hours. Does the helpful policy apply to everyone Andre? Oldgreg100 (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does look to have been 3 times, but you had 5, not to mention a number of users warning you to stop removing content against policy and consensus. The rule is WP:3RR, you are misunderstanding how it all works here again. I'm happy to answer any questions but you should try to read and review the material first. It's true that at discretion, an admin could warn or block me for edit warring at 3 reverts, but bright line for blocking is more than 3. Also I was reverting a probable WP:NOTHERE WP:POVPUSHer or could you also tell me, did you ever have another account that you used to edit Wikipedia? Andre🚐 17:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never did, honey. But I should since it appears there’s a political witch-hunt on wiki. I too believe I was reverting WP:POVPUSHer

Oldgreg100 (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to get far talking about a WP:WITCHHUNT Andre🚐 18:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like I’m not going far in here regardless. You’ve expressed it very clearly early on by saying “this is not how it works” as a response to my valid question. The implication is - “this is a good ol boys’ club so back off - we run the show here” Oldgreg100 (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is why even mentioning Wikipedia elicits eyerolls from anyone actually involved in the academia. This is how the credibility gets ruined Oldgreg100 (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple - there's a bunch of policy that states that if you show up on here trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS because you believe Wikipedia is biased - you will be reverted if you don't have a policy basis for your edits. Obvious POV pushing is obvious. Read the docs, and come back if you want to contribute productively. Andre🚐 18:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious POV pushing is indeed obvious. When you duplicate a contrived negative fact about a political candidate on their page that is indeed POV pushing.

My edits never removed any of the information; yours did. My edits included a candidate’s detailed military accomplishments, his stances on COVID (negative and positive ones), war in Afghanistan and his views on taxes.

Your political edits - removed the new info I added, duplicated his designation as “far right” by Washington post and once again duplicated his position on Biden-trump elections. Who’s POV pushing, Andre?  Oldgreg100 (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did more research. Found out that you’re a former wiki admin who engaged in activism and have been self admittedly guilty of COI. Good to know.

I’m going to see if I could get in touch with some of the journalists I know to write a story on this. The public needs to know who’s out there purposely attempts to influence our elections and our political sphere Oldgreg100 (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TPA revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can read my statements on User:Andrevan/COI and User:Andrevan/2018, I am indeed a former admin, and I resigned my adminship after several mistakes that I regret, none of which were COI-related. I haven't violated any COI policies but I do have a COI disclosure about multiple-years-old COI-adjacent edits that predate our current COI disclosure policy. I would caution you to review our policies on WP:OUTING and retaliatory WP:HARASSMENT. Andre🚐 19:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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 ~~~~}}. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked for reverting political vandalism? Oldgreg100 (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2022 (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-1992 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m confused. What did I do again to get blocked? Oldgreg100 (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as your block expired, you immediately reverted for the same reasons as your edit warring block. Andre🚐 23:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's very likely this is your last chance, so please take the time while you are blocked to consider if you'll avoid violating WP:EW once your block expires. Frankly, I very strongly suggest staying away from politics generally and Donald C. Bolduc in particular, though note this is a suggestion only and not a requirement and is based on your problems editing there. --Yamla (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edit warning block was for violating 3 reverse rule. I didn’t violate it again Oldgreg100 (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You got me blocked for simply editing the page Oldgreg100 (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's "EDIT WAR" not "EDIT WARNING." But consider this a warning, that if you are unblocked after the block expires and then you go and continue to make your same edits, you will likely be blocked again for longer or maybe indefinitely. So maybe spend some time and actually read and educate on Wiki policy before you go doing those edits again. Thanks. Andre🚐 04:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was autocorrect. Again. This time I didn’t violate the 3 rule reverse policy, so I wanted some clarification on why I was banned. Also I was addressing an admin here, not a Wikipedia super influencer Oldgreg100 (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]