User talk:295N63E

Edit-warring on Diamond and Silk
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 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&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.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

295N63E (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Editors and Snooganssnoogans, I apologize for several earlier reverts over the course of four days. I had believed based on comments between myself and two other editors, that the concerns raised in the reverts should have been addressed. There is much ambiguity online, but the facts on this particular topic appear clear, and it appears the Wikipedia statement as written is inaccurate and misleading. In fact, this glaring omission was what spurred me to finally decide to start editing on Wiki after having been a long time user (and sometimes donor).

The article as written states that "There is, however, no evidence that Facebook blocked or censored Diamond and Silk's Facebook page." Links to CNN and the Washington Post.

I readily admit there is lack of concensus in the media over this. There is frequently pushback on politically charged issues. In cases like this it is Wikipedia's past practice to fall back on primary source documentation to the extent it is present. Official statements from the company (Facebook) in question are crucial in a fact based inquiry. Those statements conclusively show that facebook briefly censored (in Mark Zuckerberg's opinion), Diamond and Silk. Zuck was asked why censorship and replied that in that case the team made an enforcement error (and fixed it). If facebooks position was that it was not brief censorship he would have said "they weren't censored or something similar". Neither Facebook nor Zuckerberg made subsequent attempts to clarify his statement on the record, given under oath. It is important to note as well that the explicit use of the phrase "team made an enforcement error" counters the widely held opinion in some social media groups that the action by facebook was initiated simply by a computer program, as it was clearly human driven.

As such I suggest adding a clarifying sentence: However, on April 11, 2018, Mark Zuckerberg testified before the US House of Representatives to Congressman Joe Barton's question of "why is Facebook censoring conservative bloggers such as Diamond and Silk..." that "in that specific case, our team made an enforcement error and we have already gotten in touch with them to reverse it."

I would argue that this sentence is far less conclusive in tone than the statement as written that there is no evidence. It allows the reader to assess the official company statement to come to their own conclusion regarding the facts of the matter.

While removing the prior sentence may make the paragraph more accurate in my opinion, it would also ignore that there is contention. As such I proposed editing the current sentence to begin with "Some media sources state there is"(no evidence that Facebook blocked or censored Diamond and Silk's Facebook page). The reporting from CNN and the WaPo is there, and readers appreciate knowing the scope of an issue. Showing both sides of this issue, and not ignoring the direct testimony of facebook, provides impartiality to what is otherwise politically charged. I appreciate any and all responses from editors but will request that editors not issue any put downs such as "be smarter".295N63E (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2020
Please stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did on Diamond and Silk. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''Your material relied on original research based on primary sources. That will not do. '' Drmies (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC) I am not providing poorly or unsourced content. Content from the transcription of U.S. House of representatives clearly meets Wikipedia's policy on verifiability as it is explicitly verifiable. Please read the talk page if you have concerns we have been discussing this for near on a month.--295N63E (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)