User talk:K7xjl9v3V1G

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

response to OhNoitsJamie
You apparently are an administrator, but your message contains violations showing you are unsuitable as an administrator. You are threatening to block ("you may be blocked from editing," which implies YOU will block) in a personal editing dispute. A non-administrator would have written, at most, "I will report your violation if you repeat it, which can result in a block." Your statement is an implicit personal threat to block me in a personal editing dispute.

Implicitly threatening to use your administrative blocking power in a personal dispute is an administrative violation ("editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings.")

You are clearly incapable of objectivity. You state no reason why my one-word addition is "disruptive." It probably did not conform, inadvertently, with the rules (and it was my first edit), but that doesn't make it disruptive.

Disruptive editing means "disrupts progress toward improving an article." Adding one word ("nominally" with the omission of a reference) cannot possibly "disrupt progress toward improvement." Had you removed it and merely noted no reference for the addition of the word, that would have been an objective statement.

I note that "conservative-leaning" doesn't appear in the reference (30) at the end of the sentence. In fact the referenced National Review article states, "Jennifer Rubin, the Washington Post’s ostensibly conservative blogger." "Ostensible" means "being such in appearance : plausible rather than demonstrably true or real." In appearance rather than true means "in name only," or nominally. The existing reference supports the addition of "nominally."

Other quotations from that National Review article are:

"Contrary to popular myth, she is not in fact writing from a “conservative perspective"

"she does conservatism a sincere disservice"

My editing comments are not part of the encyclopedia visible to the average reader, so they could not be "disruptive," and they merely explain my reasoning.

You are hardly civil about this ("Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors"). Your incivility is disruptive ("serious disruption of Wikipedia through behavior such as incivility") because it is intended to intimidate ("Admins should never use their admin abilities to intimidate others") rather than objectively point out an error, which you also do not do.

And blocks "are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project and other users from disruption." Your intimidation and threat to block "disruption" where you do not even specify what makes the word, "nominally," disruptive, combined with the FACT that the referenced National Review article itself characterizes Rubin as only an "ostenstible conservative" and "is not writing from a conservative perspective," strongly implicate you as threatening the use of your administrative power for improper purposes, disqualifying you as an admin.

My addition was valid and should be restored, and you should be removed as an admin.