User talk:ContentEditman

Edit

Welcome!
Hello, ContentEditman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!  —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  01:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

SPI notice
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/ContentEditman. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

GoneIn60 throws tantrum and accuses others of sock puppetry when he does not get his way. Check his record and the outcomes. ContentEditman (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, check them. I've submitted two, and both were confirmed. They were all the same editor. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Your request for a Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined) because of the number of editors involved in the dispute. 3O's are only for disputes with exactly 2 editors. Consider DRN instead if you still desire dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

January 2018
&mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 02:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on L.L. Bean. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. SarekOfVulcan (talk)  22:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * This is rich for someone that is doing the edit warring and editing against what the reference say. ContentEditman (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

New Yorker ref
You included a named ref pointer, but not actually the ref. Can you fix this, please? Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep sorry about that, just saw it and fixed. Thanks ContentEditman (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Gracias. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Spliting discussion for Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination
An article that you have been involved with (Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article (Brett Kavanaugh sexual assault allegations). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at the article's talk page. Thank you. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
Your addition to Rape in India has been removed, 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) 14:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

BLP DS alert
El_C 15:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trump
Hey, I did explain that removal of content. It was essentially a duplication of the previous sentence, which already described that the investigation was looking into connections with other countries. The sentence I removed just stated it again, unaware that it ha already been discussed. Please self-revert your edit. I'm willing to discuss further. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No I will not. As others editors have told you, and you seem to ignore, it was sourced and discussed on the talk page. You did not bring any of your mass edits up on the TALK page first and are acting surprised that they have been reverted. Work things out on the talk page first and don't feign surprise when reverted. ContentEditman (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

O'Keefe
I have moved some information to Project Veritas, per the talk page. More should also be moved, but will require someone who knows which investigations were under that banner.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC).

Talk:David Koch
For your own benefit, you may like to strike this remark which makes you look slightly foolish. Per WP:BDP, Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends... . Regardless of what opinion you may have, I never feel it is okay to question whether an editor [knows] what a reference is and or a fact on an article's talk page (and in the middle of a content dispute). Please take such concerns to the user's talk page and actually be WP:Civil about it, please. You are a smart and well read editor, so you must know that remarks that can be perceived as condescending towards a fellow editor just reinforce the false narrative that on Wikipedia we are all left-wing activists here to slander conservatives whenever we get the chance. I encourage you to refrain from taking such bait in the future. – MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Jay Leno
Please review WP:BLOGS. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 18:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This one. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 01:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * No where does it say you can;t use a reference that has the words blog in it. It clearly states you can;t use self-published sources which this is not. In fact its covered here and is not against Wikipedia rules. WP:NEWSBLOGContentEditman (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

MERCON Automatic Transmission fluid.
The content you deleted from the page was absolutely applicable to the topic of lifetime fluids. Although this is a Ford Mercon page, the information from Chrysler is useful in understanding the concept. Chrysler was the first to discover that the fluids would last almost forever is a sealed torus. The source documentation is clearly shown. Please restore the content you deleted from the MERCON page. Thank you.--Hymn62 (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 2600:8805:DC00:14D0:19B1:D5BB:25A4:6AA3 (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit summary
Hello, I'm Xenagoras. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Tulsi Gabbard in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Your edit summary for your deletion of my edit  is inappropriate because you falsely accused me of edit warring. Please be civil. You also did not give any explanation for what your edit changed and why. Please always provide that. Additionally, your huge deletion was inappropriate because editors should WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM instead of removing content from an article. Xenagoras (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Information_orange.svg please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages, as you did to Tulsi Gabbard . This behavior is viewed as disruptive. Please  don't accuse me of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusation is severe like "edit warring".  Please do not revert with a "discuss first" request in your edit summary without yourself engaging in discussion. You have not explained your revert anywhere. WP:POTKETTLE Xenagoras (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nuvola apps important.svg your repeated full reinstatements   of challenged  material on a biography of a living person without discussing that material violates the discretionary sanctions on this article. The material you reinstated also violates several policies like WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS AGE, WP:SUMMARY, WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:RFC. Please revert yourself now. Xenagoras (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you can safely ignore most of this ContentEditman, especially the last one listing spurious policy shortcuts. The edits you restored do not violate any of those policies, as has been explained to Xenagoras by numerous experienced editors. It certainly looks like you have discussed these edits on the talk page. - MrX 🖋 18:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alerts for post-1932 American politics and gender related issues
Doug Weller talk 14:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller talk 14:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Jared Kushner
I undid my own rollback because I simply didn't know what "AGF" means. Now, I know it means "assume good faith".  Key a com  (💬 | 🖊) 15:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

South Carolina Primary page
Hi,

I just wanted to let you know that the consensus reached on the Nevada Caucuses page was that the infobox is for top polling candidates only. That’s why Tulsi Gabbard isn’t included. Nobody except for the editor who put Gabbard there reverted my edits. On a more general note, it seems that you accuse people of edit warring a lot. Try to have some good faith in people. I was doing what the consensus was, and the consensus was reached after a lengthy discussion on the Nevada Caucuses page. I hope this clears things up for you and doesn’t come off as angry or aggressive.

Thanks, and have a good day! Smith0124 (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:AE notification
there is currently a discussion at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Xenagoras (talk) 04:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Talkback Tulsi Gabbard (second request)
Xenagoras (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * you should read WP:VOLUNTEER. Your content complaints have now been answered by several editors, yet you keep raising the same complaints. Dragging users to noticeboards and demanding that they respond to your every comment in a content dispute can start to look like WP:HARASSMENT if you're not careful. - MrX 🖋 12:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
Well, if you'd like an example, at 15:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC), you Mali (GPU). At 18:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC),  Talk:Planned Parenthood. At 18:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC), was created, and subsequently. This is all on the same IP address. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I have ever edited Planned Parenthood, I just looked and I have not edited that page, and I do not know who "Jytdog" is. Also what IP is that? You do realize that there is a global pandemic going on right? Millions are working from home, places of work use VPNs to get on their network, and most do not have the funds to build their own so they use a large one like Cisco. Thats who we use for VPN access. Since I work odd hours I leave it on to receive e-mails. So other than maybe a common national VPN IP is there anything else that you think ties these accounts to me? I know of nothing since I have nothing to do with them. ContentEditman (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

So what is the point of a unblock request when there was no investigation to begin with, hard to replay when there is not one, and if the unblock request will not be addressed other than to ignore and have to e-mail someone else? Is this really how it works now and what Wikipedia has become? 1 admin on their own with no postings of an investigation just bans someone? All because some of us are now at home due to a pandemic and have to use a VPN for work? AGAIN I have nothing to do with ANY other accounts. That would have been obvious if anyone actually looked at my account and ANY others. ContentEditman (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s not exactly how it works. AppliedCharisma is 100% ✅ to SomeEditorsAreMoreEqual. A check was initiated on SEAME when it posted a post trolling at WT:ACN about the Jytdog case. The outcome of that investigation was to block AppliedCharisma and SEAME. This account (ContentEditman) came up in that check, but after discussion with ST47, we decided to not block this account and wait for more edits for comparison. This is a fairly common approach when the technical data indicates there may be a false positive: we try not to block additional accounts. I believe ST47 came back to this case based on additional disruption, and went back through the evidence and determined there was enough to block.If you want my review of the technical evidence, I’d say you are /✅ to them and that there are enough questions that need to be answered for a block. Telling you to appeal to ArbCom is a way to protect your privacy: some of those questions can’t readily be answered in public. The Arbitration Committee has access to all the evidence ST47 looked at while making this block, and can take into account things CUs cannot based on the limitations of the CU tool. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
Hi ContentEditman. I've had to revert you again on Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, because I think that there is some confusion - as far as I can tell, your edit here simply adds text that was already in the article, duplicating the material. The edits you were reverting had already been reverted, so you were accidently adding it twice. - Bilby (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, I saw the mass removals and edit warring, I thought I was adding back what was brought up on the talk page. I did add the notable person as its referenced and I looked at her page after she removed herself. I think thats ok due to reference and context. ContentEditman (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No hassles - it seemed like a perfectly good faith accident, and I've done much worse. :) However, in regard to Rebekah Bernard, the normal rule is that only people with articles can be added to these lists (per WP:LISTPEOPLE). As her article was deleted, she normally wouldn't be included. - Bilby (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I took care of that. Doug Weller  talk 14:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Meatloaf's religion
If you look in his personal life section it clearly states he was a devout Christian even though he did not attend Church and he prayed daily. Please do not revert. Thank you. Lmharding (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Lmharding I just looked and no where does it say he was a Christian. Even the reference for that part does not even have the word Christian in it. Praying does not equal Christian. He might have been but you need to find a reliable reference that supports it. ContentEditman (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. And a question.
Thank you for thanking me for this edit. Another editor reverted my change with an edit summary saying "was clearer before." I'd like to enter into a discussion with the reverting editor but, in the past, I have found them to focus more on protecting their viewpoint than on finding common ground. So if it's just me then it would probably be a waste of time. If I start a talk page discussion would you participate? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Bob Saget
I received your thanks but of course that was reverted. I would lean toward including this information but if others don't I have to go along with consensus.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  16:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Two Of Us (Film 2000) - Question
Dear ContentEditman, Thank you for your acknowledgment of my edit. I am a new editor, and went back and forth with editor Nikkimaria  who indicated my addition of an IMDB link to the cast member in question was an incorrect. As a new editor I was happy to defer to Nikkimaria's advice. but your note to me has made me second guess that. I'm wondering if you might review the transactions and weigh in, bearing in mind that I am NOT seeking just to have my way, but want to make sure I am editing correctly, not just for Nikkimaria, but according to the intent of the rules as written. I have left the entry as per Nikkimaria's last revision, and am happy to understand her position is one to fully adopt in moving forward. Many thanks if you have a moment to review. Here is an extract fro our brief exchange, which I think accurately sums the matter:


 * Hi Nikkimaria!! Thanks for your reply!! As mentioned already, it is indeed super clear what WP:ELPOINTS point 2: says, however the item under discussion is not in fact what WP:ELPOINTS point 2: PROHIBITS, but instead what WP:ELYES point 3 ALLOWS. WP:ELYES point 3 not only allows for an external link to movie and television databases, it explicitly names such lists and encourages their addition by specifically categorizing them under the title WHAT CAN NORMALLY BE LINKED.
 * I agree with you that it is not necessarily appropriate to include links to all cast members in a project, but the edit in question is not seeking to add ALL cast members. It seeks to add one cast member, with context - ie not a passive addition. WP:ELYES point 3 provides a clear guideline not just for what is acceptable, but what is explicitly deemed as NORMALLY ALLOWED, obviating any necessity to attempt a purely subjective determination about this external link because the rule I am citing specifically names movie and television credit lists as NORMALLY ALLOWABLE.
 * I believe what you may actually be arguing is that the proposed external link is somehow in some way abnormal, and therefore not allowable. But I suggest to you that my use of the external link, the way I deployed it is precisely the use anticipated by WP:ELYES point 3. Thoughts? Arts Publica (talk) 04:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Veterans Sections for Speakers
Hello,

I noticed you assisted in an edit on the Veterans section of the Jim Jordan article. Similar information has been added to the Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) article. If possible, I would like your assistance again in this editing and sourcing of material so we can re-add. Twillisjr (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)