User talk:Richwilkinson

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 19:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

NPOV
Hello, I'm Augusthorsesdroppings10. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Dasha Burns seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I opened a discussion on the talk page last time (at which the involved IP has refused to appear) for rational consensus-building, as is our policy on Wikipedia.

Minor edit
Hi Richwilkinson! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Sam Brinton that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. BBQboffin (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * My edit is not subject to dispute. The details I added are a matter of public record from law enforcement. See the court filing: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23321025-brinton-statement-of-probable-cause ☺ I changed nothing that was already there, just added. The truth should not be suppressed just because additional details make somebody else uncomfortable. But, thanks for the Wikipedia definition of minor edit. I was not aware that this edit flag mattered so much. I'll be more careful in the future. Richwilkinson (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

July 2023
Hi, this is a reminder that talk pages exist for the purpose of improving articles, not general discussion of the topic or your own opinion/research. Your comments at Talk:Tim Ballard are bumping up against WP:NOTFORUM. Please remember that we go by what reliable sources say (even if we personally disagree with them); your long distribes about why you think the reliable sources are wrong (using sources that don't even mention the topic) is disruptive and will be reported to ANI if they continue. –dlthewave ☎ 00:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * No bias there. ☺☺☺ The sources I object to may be reliable sources but they do not support the statement to which they are attached as citations. Slow down. Digest my intent. Do your homework. Calling my efforts to improve the article's accuracy "long diatribes" is more disruptive than what I wrote, as is your threat to report to ANI. I'm tired of politically motivated censorship. When I edit an article directly, I get slapped on the wrist but when I use talk, in the same way others do, I get scolded — It's a no-win. So, I give up trying to make Wikipedia more accurate and scholarly. It's becoming an echo chamber for the like-minded and a lumbering dinosaur about to become obsolete. AI engines give better answers faster anyway. Richwilkinson (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Important notice
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. –dlthewave ☎ 00:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)