User talk:LegionSentinel2021

February 2021
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Fort Hill High School have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Fort Hill High School was changed by LegionSentinel2021 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.853308 on 2021-02-18T20:45:28+00:00

March 2021
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Stonewall Jackson. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 05:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not believe I did. I suspect if anything, the individual who paced those references there was in violation of the policy. Thanks much.

reverting out sources
Is there a reason you reverted out these sources that another editor added? 

If there a valid reason to revert or remove sources (and there often can be), it is up to you to explain so in the summary, or if it is too long to explain in a summary, to leave a summary explaining that you will explain further on the talk page for that article, followed by you doing so. Otherwise, when someone just deletes sources, how can we tell the difference between 1. a good reason, 2. wrong action but with good faith, or 3. vandalism. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Dennis - thanks for the feedback. Couple of things. My action definitely falls into the first category. You will notice I did not remove the direct sources for the narrative described i.e. the story on the legislative action or the legislative language. Those remain as they should. What I removed is what a reasonable person would consider opinion articles that do not directly relate to the passage on the legislation. I thought they should be removed as a source for what is written. That is all. Of note, as a resident of the state in question, I agree with the action that the legislature took....for the record. Appreciate you taking the time to comment and provide feedback. Thanks much.
 * My main point is that you need to go to the article talk page and explain there. Others may disagree. If a consensus disagrees, then it would likely go back in.  That's how we do things here.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice
I'd note also that you should probably take some time to familiarise yourself with the list of frequently discussed sources, as you have cited National Review (considered partisan, and thus usually unsuitable for factual claims) and Quillette (considered generally unreliable) while removing, for example, the Washington Post (considered reliable). You should also avoid giving undue weight to fringe views. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to National Rifle Association, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Bishonen &#124; tålk 21:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Notice
 Acroterion   (talk)   17:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The 1619 Project, you may be blocked from editing. Putting links for what might be called a competing project in this article is seriously disruptive, and your edit summary was highly deceptive. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Not sure what is disruptive by adding relevant content.....nothing was deleted, so how can there be a dispute to resolve? If you would like to discuss, then we certainly can. Thanks for the feedback.


 * We're not going to discuss anything here: you added links for a competing project (1776 Unites) on the page of The 1619 Project. That is so inappropriate that it's hard to imagine how you could get more inappropriate than that. Now, I'm only writing these details down here for the next uninvolved administrator to visit this page (maybe, , or ), who might decide if a topic ban for the American Politics area is appropriate--but then, that edit if yours is so ridiculous that it approaches NOTHERE territory. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your viewpoint totally as there are other references to the 1619 vs. 1776 approaches in the article. I cannot help you didn't like what i posted, plus I did not add any narrative or content. That seems fairly neutral of an approach to me. People can have differences of opinion.


 * Responding to ping: I'll wait, but a topic ban is certainly on the cards if the disruption continues. LegionSentinel2021, your edit summary here is blatantly untrue — 1776 Unites isn't mentioned in the article even once, let alone "several times". What do you mean by saying it is? And saying it as an excuse for edit warring, yet. When what you call a 'difference of opinion' about your addition appeared with C.Fred removing it, you should have gone to the talkpage to try to establish a consensus - not reverted back. PS, User:Drmies, note that JzG isn't an admin at present, indeed he hasn't edited since May. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC).
 * Thanks User:Bishonen. LegionSentinel, what you did is like adding links to pages run by the Washington Times in The Washington Post--it makes no sense from an encyclopedic or logical point of view; it only makes sense as an effort to undermine the subject of the article. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I can understand your point but don't totally think the analogy of the WT/WP is applicable. It is good (and maybe even logical) at times to have easier access to other points of view. My intent but nonetheless it is no longer there on the page, and that is the way it shall be. No problem here. Have a good weekend and a Happy Fourth of July / Independence Day weekend. Thanks.