User talk:73.53.31.249

January 2021
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

73.53.31.249 (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

How is adding a link to an NY Times article detailing which members of the Senate and the House voted to overturn an election considered unconstructive? It is newsworthy, recent, and there is factual record to all of these edits. Almost none of these articles contained this information prior to adding it.


 * Please, do not spam edits like that. Also read: WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Please revert all of your edits now. You may then use talk page to justify your edits. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This is very much news and not of newspaper/breaking news variety. These votes are in the congressional record and other votes made by these politicians which have controversy around them are called out on their pages. As far as recentism goes, this very much of a long term impact for the United States, regardless of which side you are on. These votes were made after the Capitol building was overrun with protestors responding specifically to the event, when several members of congress changed their minds and didn't vote against the certification.  These people chose to consider the path and being this is the first time there has been a coordinated effort to overturn an election by the house and senate since the end of reconstruction, this is quite important to the shaping of American democracy.


 * There may be an argument to insert it somewhere on the page, but not in the lead section. The lead section is meant to summarize the entire article. Also, spamming edits like that is very counter-productive. Have you edited with a different account before? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, this: is pure vandalism. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is inappropriate. He placed it in the opening section of every single representative. It was not based upon any kind of analysis. Just repeated over and over. - CharlesShirley (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)