User talk:Mach7X77

Welcome!
Hello, Mach7X77, 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.

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 to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! TMCk (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war on the article Dana Loesch in that you have made reverts on the article to your preferred version three times in the past 24 hours as seen here: 1st Revert, 2nd Revert, 3rd Revert. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The massive editing done to this page created broken links and unsourced assertions. Further it questioned legitimate news sources due to personal bias against the subject and sources themselves. I did not start a war, I corrected obvious bias and editorial in the guise of "correcting bad edits" when in fact they were bad edits in and of themselves. Continuing to prop up such bias destroys the credibility of the format. The facts should be left as fact and the person who made the crazy amount of terrible unsourced edits should have been blocked and all reversed as they didn't meet the standards we set forth when starting Wikipedia. Hostile editorial has no place here. Mach7X77 (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that you feel that your edits were an improvement and/or justified, but it is readily apparent to myself and others like TMCk that they are problematic. Another editor, DrFleischman, carefully went through the edits step by step and included edit summaries for each of the changes.  If you want to try and re-introduce some of your desired changes, use the following technique:
 * 1. Wait till at least 24 hours after your first revert, to avoid triggering consequences under the WP:3RR rule.
 * 2. Next, made incremental changes, one item at a time, to article text or article sources.  Keep each item separate, and use descriptive edit summaries so that your rationale for each change is clear.
 * 3. If nobody objects to a particular edit, they will leave it alone (great!).  Conversely, if another editor reverts a specific edit or edits, you have entered the WP:BRD cycle on that particular item.  Go to the article's Talk Page and start a new section at the bottom of the page to discuss that particular edit and state your reasons why you believe the change should be made.  Through a process of collaboration and exchange, you'll either 1) work it out with the other editor and come to mutual agreement on if/how the change should be implemented or 2) if you can't come to an agreement, seek dispute resolution through a third opinion, an RfC, or dispute resolution.  This may seem like a lot of work, but it's how things get worked out in Wikipedia's collaborative environment.
 * Whatever you do, the worst mistake you could make right now would be to try to revert the article again to your preferred version, as it will be a clear-cut violation of the WP:3RR rule (don't do it!). If you have questions on this, or any other items above, you can ask me, or you can seek out other independent/uninvolved editors and get their advice/assistance on collaborative editing.  I would also highly recommend checking out some of the items and links that TMCk posted in the section "Welcome!" above, as the information will help you to get to know better many of the project's policies and guidelines.  Hope that helps... Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems as though you aren't noting that all of the edits made by DrFleischman were editorialized, introduced conjecture and removed citations to make the page seem less reliable. They were a systematic undoing of many step by step and incremental changes that had been painstakingly done and refined recently by other people. It is obviously malicious and should be reverted by anyone with a spine. This type of malicious editing and editorializing is what makes wikipedia look like a joke to serious fact seekers. Mach7X77 (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I looked at the edits. If you feel an edit was obviously incorrect, I'd suggest highlighting that specific edit on the Talk Page and challenging it.  Use the corresponding WP:DIFF to show the specific edit, and state your rationale.  You may be surprised to find another editor replies to your response and gives you a much better reason than you anticipated as to why that edit should be the way it is.  Or, it may be the other way around and they'll agree with you.  Or, if neither of you can come to agreement, other editors will participate and help resolve the matter.  Give it a try; pick out the one specific edit that is most important to you, and start with that one.  If it helps, you may want to read the other sections already on the Dana Loesch talk page first, to see how other things have been resolved previously.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mach7X77. If you feel my edits are biased then the way to address the problem is go to Talk:Dana Loesch and provide a detailed explanation of why you think so. That way we can discuss the substance of the issue without edit warring. And please remember that the foundation of Wikipedia is collaboration. Among other things, this means you should always assume good faith and critique the edits, not the editor. We all come to this project with our own personal biases. The goal is not to cleanse ourselves of those biases but to arrive at neutral articles through collaboration and civil discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi DrFleischman, I'm glad that you are admitting your bias as the basis for removing facts and links to articles which have been used for many years. The history on this page shows that bias, not factual information is the main cause for your mass reversal of all the cited information that was recently added and edited. You aren't the judge of what news organization is worthy to be cited, nor are you contributing to the veracity of WP with your malicious edits. You actually made the page worse and pushed it out of compliance. Your goal should be to cleanse yourself of bias and not interject editorial which is all you did through error, verbiage and omission. I suggest you examine your practices or risk being reported. Again, your admission of biased editing is antithetical to the idea of a neutral article. Nothing has ever been resolved on this page if you read the history, it's a constant malicious troll-fest with some even suggesting the subject didn't merit a WP page to begin with. I suggest you remove your bias and your biased edits yourself. Thanks again. Mach7X77 (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You didn't read a word I wrote, did you? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, I did read your words and find your interpretation of WP practice lacking. You are supposed to come to the subject without bias and in a neutral manor, if you cannot then you should excuse yourself from posting on this page. Mach7X77 (talk) 06:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * On the subject of competence, I have to question your ability to work collaboratively here when you describe my edits as "malicious" and "rant editing" and then claim you have not engaged in personal attacks. If this unfriendly behavior continues I will seek administrative action. No point in dragging this out any longer than necessary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You said your edits were biased and that you were not seeking to edit without bias. I said your edits were biased and they are. They are biased against actual established news sources (not mere blogs) which are used all over WP and furthermore your edits took the page out of compliance by removing citations. That does nothing to help the veracity of WP nor your claim that you were personally attacked. You seem to dislike that the bad faith edits were pointed out. I have screen shots and copies of all these conversations and feel fine that all I did was agree with your own assertions. I suggest you revert your edits that took the page out of compliance and stop using admitted bias in your editing. Reread the guidelines you linked here, you will not find a single statement encouraging bias, the edits are to be neutral. Dana Loesch's accomplishments are what they are whether you like them or not and whether you like the sources that reported them or not. I have not threatened anyone with reporting them but I find that practice to be antithetical to the spirit of WP along with biased editing. I don't even like the woman's politics but everyone deserves an unbiased documentation. Mach7X77 (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me like you are just refusing to assume good faith. This is bordering on WP:IDHT. You have been told multiple times to discuss edits that were made, but has refused to do so. Instead they have questioned another editor, rather than the content. Allow me to reiterate a part of the no personal attacks policy:

You have clearly not followed this part of NPA, which makes me wonder how you can claim understanding of these policies at all. As to your insistence about bias, it is impossible to be without bias. The trick is to work with other editors, and include their opinions into the article, so that it does not contain just one point of view, but the points of view of the whole community. Though, I must point out that if you are so against bias, then why do you push your bias that the sources are fine? You have bias too. There is no getting around that everyone has bias. Please work to gain consensus over the content, rather than try and force an editor to stop editing, or change himself. Those are personal attacks. You are saying that the way they are is bad, and causes problems. That is what I see it to be. I hope we can all come to work together on this. -- Orduin  Discuss 20:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have been happy to discuss it. It is every single edit he made. I'm not showing bias by saying media sources that I don't even like should be included. When Andrew Breitbart, who also founded Drudge Report and Huffington Post, makes a quote about Dana Loesch in a video on the Breitbart site it shouldn't be removed as being from an unreliable source. Even though I disagreed with the man's politics he is an influential figure and was named one of the top 25 from the conservative side. Omission is bias against that source, me saying it should be included is NOT bias for the source. Every edit I made to this page was reversed with flimsy biased reasons, period. And YES, if you read the WP guidelines linked right here you see that the spirit of editing is to be WITHOUT BIAS and to be NEUTRAL! Not to come with bias a blazing and then fight it out to reach a consensus. The edits I had made were painstakingly made to bring the page within compliance, the edits after mine took the page OUT of compliance, they stripped important information and removed outside resources that are central to this person's career. Links to her current employers for example which show that she is broadcast across the nation with her radio syndication. The fact that Nielsen ranked her as one of the most powerful mom's online... These are all well known facts that are verified by a number of different sources - most of which don't even agree with her politics (as I stated, I don't either). We do a disservice to WP by allowing such defacement to continue and it will ultimately make us look bad. I made changes, neutral cited and verified changes and they were reversed and verbiage with intentional malice was placed, phrases like "drop out" or removing that she is of mixed Native American heritage are only meant to obscure her past. I have been threatened repeatedly here and have never made such threat myself, I have only pointed out the ACTUAL WP GUIDELINE words and the spirit we are supposed to edit in and have received threats and bullying. Real "Collaborative" - it makes me want to switch sides politically. Do what you want, malign another woman, strip her of her accomplishments, accolades and heritage. Yay collaborating! - I'm done talking and being threatened with "administrative action". Silence the voices of dissent till the only voice you hear is your own.Mach7X77 (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

One more time
Consider this a last warning. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community, and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks." TMCk (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't think you can come and tell me that I'm the one making a personal attack when I;m constantly being accused of being a Dana Loesch fan. It is insulting. The edits are constantly reversed and I have the entire record of being the one who was willing to compromise for consensus. I have only commented about the edits. I will not be bullied or have my reputation sullied. These kinds of personal attacks and agendas do harm the Wikipedia community. The record is clearly written for anyone to see and I have screen caps of it all. I'm shocked and disappointed.Mach7X77 (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Who accused you of being a Loesch fan? And what would be wrong with that anyway? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)