User talk:97.83.253.222

July 2020
Hello, I'm Eyer. I noticed that you recently removed content from Scott L. Fitzgerald 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 the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Eyer (If you reply, add   to your message to let me know.) 20:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Scott L. Fitzgerald. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

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 Scott L. Fitzgerald, you may be blocked from editing. — Eyer (If you reply, add   to your message to let me know.) 15:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Help with violation of biographies of living persons policies
Please help me with...

I believe that edits repeatedly made over the course of the past several months by user Snooganssnoogans represent violations of the Biographies of living persons policies. I am not a frequent wikipedia user or editor but am a resident of the State of Wisconsin with familiarity with the subject. In review of the edit history, it is evident that this user has on numerous occasions added material that does not meet the criteria of Neutral point of view, or original research. Myself and other users have attempted to remove material in violation of these polices and add material from major credible news outlets providing accurate historic context on the subject of the article--echoing material in other wikipedia articles that also speak to related matters--but the same user repeatedly reverses edits by multiple other contributors. While I again am not familiar with wikipedia editing policies, I have taken into account feedback from other users and modified the editing process to ensure justification of edits and thorough sourcing. This is clearly reflected in the edit history.

I have attempted to make numerous individual additions that correct inaccurate information and add thoroughly cited information in small sections, but all added sections have been repeatedly blanked. The user offers no justification for reversing section additions or changes in structure made by other users.

For example: the article inaccurately indicates that the subject is unopposed in the congressional primary. This is false, and easily disproven (the subject has a primary opponent in the April 11 primary). This was corrected, and the edit was reversed by user Snooganssnoogans.

Other sections repeatedly reinserted include information that clearly fails to meet a neutral point of view, and had been repeatedly flagged by other users as being editorial in nature. For example, the article as edited interprets a statement from the subject to "suggesting that urban voters (who are more likely to vote for Democrats) do not reflect the real electorate.[11]" This is not stated anywhere or paraphrased in the cited material and is purely extrapolation, as are many editorial additions made by the poster that other users have attempted to flag and reverse, but have been repeatedly reinserted.

Other sections have repeatedly been flagged by multiple users over recent months as both non-viewpoint neutral, and not specific to the subject of the article. By repeatedly deleting additions of sourced information from multiple users and reversing any deletion of content violating the Biographies of living persons policies, this user is vandalizing and detracting from the informational value of this article.

Thank you for your time and attention. 97.83.253.222 (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, Wisconsinite! Welcome to Wikipedia. Hope you are well. What resolution do you hope to achieve? Thanks, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rotideypoc41352, and thank you. I'm not sure if i'm replying correctly to this so apologize if this is not formatted correctly. I am hoping to remove violations of policies on biographies of living persons to arrive at a viewpoint neutral article on this subject. I have attempted to follow the stated policies from Wikipedia that could find on this matter which said, "If you can, simply remove the offending material."

Based on feedback of user Eyer and others that simply removing sections is against protocols, I have attempted to improve my edit process by clearly noting and individually sourcing each edit (just learning here). Unfortunately, the user simply reverts any changes made by me or others. I do not want to be engaged in some sort of "edit war" and it seems these policies of repeatedly reverting an article to a previous version are against wikipedia policies. In particular, if there is not justification of why the added sections should be removed, I would hope they could be reinserted without simply undoing Snooganssnoogans revision again, which the user will certainly just reverse. Viewing the users history shows that they have undone revisions made by other users on 5 occasions with justifications such as "nonsense." The user is clearly not advancing a viewpoint neutral perspective on this subject and continues to perpetuate the same editorial revisions.

Thank you again for assistance and apologies for any deviation from form.

97.83.253.222 (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I recommend engaging in discussion on the article's talk page. If you're able to engage in dialog there, it might help all of the interested editors to improve the article. I started the discussion already by saying that something's up... but that I don't know enough about the topic. Join i the discussion by replying to me there. — Eyer (If you reply, add   to your message to let me know.) 03:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To centralize discussion, I'll close this help request, so all relevant discussion stays on the article talk. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Still seeking on course of action if another user repeatedly reverses edits. Should this comment be in the talk page for the article instead? Not sure of process and followed the link from this page to ask for help from a volunteer or admin. 97.83.253.222 (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's talk out the content dispute on the article talk page before escalating to the relevant noticeboards. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

COI
If you have an affiliation with Scott L. Fitzgerald, you need to declare it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
Your addition to Scott L. Fitzgerald has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.