User talk:2601:2C6:5080:40BC:39E5:6C14:5F50:B5BC

August 2018
Hello, I'm Shellwood. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Donald Wuerl— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk or my talk page. Thank you. Shellwood (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Donald Wuerl is most well-known for his cover-up of child abuse in the Roman Catholic Church. This is factually supported not only by the Grand Jury report released this year, the removal of his name from Pittsburgh area Catholic schools, a broad call for his removal, and hundreds of victims reports. Additionally, this is supported by way of a massive spike in viewership in his Wikipedia page owing to this scandal. Ergo, he is most well-known for these actions. Certainly - fewer people knew him before this scandal than afterwards.

I find it appalling that you would deny the reality that these victims face in favor of propagandizing this man. Wikipedia is a page about facts, not about your opinion. I look forward to your actual debate and discussion, instead of taking aggressive, unilateral actions. 2601:2C6:5080:40BC:39E5:6C14:5F50:B5BC (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * First of all don't accuse other users (whom you know nothing about!) for having certain opinions about a subject. My reverts of your edits where based wiki-policies such as MOS:BIOLEAD. Calling someone infamous as you did is a violation against WP:NPOV. You also keep removing well sourced content without giving a proper explanation, simply screaming "propaganda!". won't help you. Please read through the policies and guidelines regarding WP:BLP before you make any further edits. Shellwood (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed poorly sourced content that only referred to opinion, and not fact. You additionally violated the three-revert rule. You need to check yourself, instead of trying to lay the blame on others. I made changes, you refused to debate them. I made a good faith effort to do so. 2601:2C6:5080:40BC:39E5:6C14:5F50:B5BC (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Donald Wuerl. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Coryphantha  Talk  01:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not mg in with an existing account]] so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history at Donald Wuerl shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 bestake the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logginpractice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|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 your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.