User talk:ThaiWanIII

Welcome![edit]

Hello, ThaiWanIII, 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:

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Parsley Man (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous accounts?[edit]

You seem to be somewhat conversant in Wikipedia policy and editing practices, and heavily engaged in political articles, despite this account being approximately 5 days old. Have you previously edited under a different account? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have previously contributed to Wikipedia some years ago on a different account, and as such I have some (although, I must confess, quite ordinary) understanding of the guidelines and protocols surrounding editing. I was prompted by the occurrence of the recent election to return. Unfortunately I was unable to recall the name of my old account, nor did I attach it to an email address to it, hence I decided to create a new account to once again contribute. I hope this answers your query. ThaiWanIII (talk) 06:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but in your enthusiasm to rejoin the encyclopedia, in addition to the inapt warning you left on my talk page[1] you are now edit warring on multiple articles that as you know are subject to discretionary sanctions. [2][3] [4][5][6] Your claim that it is a BLP violation to say that people other than Podesta claim that Russia is behind hacking Podesta's email account does not pass the straight face test. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Utilising the WP:BRD method of article development is not edit warring, furthermore I have been careful to not breach 1/3RR on all pages that I edit on. On your other point on the Podesta emails, I'd like to direct you to WP:VNT, we should be careful to ensure that all material is verifiable regardless of whether you believe it to be truthful. Since the text present was not verifiable I removed it.ThaiWanIII (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BRD is not the same as RRR-no D, which is what you did. Beyond being "careful" not to violate the rules as you construe them, better to simply not repeatedly revert disputed changes. There is no imaginable way in which the statement that people other than Podesta have said that the Russians were behind the hack of his emails is not verifiable. Google is your friend here. National security officials have said the same thing. Shall I google that for you? - Wikidemon (talk) 09:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you would have noticed that I attempted to open a discussion on the Clinton Campaign Talk Page. My decision to remove some parts from the Podesta page was based on the fact that the previous version included information that was not verifiable based on the sources cited. If you have another source, which supports the statements in previous version, I would encourage you to provided it and update the page to reflect that.ThaiWanIII (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

discretionary sanctions warning[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This is about the article Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. That and most other Clinton and Trump articles are subject to special rules, limiting how we can edit there. The rules are spelled out at the top of the edit page: "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." Your sentence about the "worst loss since 1988" has been challenged, which makes it controversial, and you must not re-add it without consensus. You were aware that it was controversial, since you participated in the talk page discussion about it. But you readded it, here and again here, without consensus. That was a violation of the Discretionary Sanctions. Don't do that kind of thing again, or you could be blocked or topic-banned. --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am only just getting into the groove of editing Wikipedia again, I thought that by closing the discussion the said addition could be included. My most profuse apologies if I have misunderstood.ThaiWanIII (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. You just didn't know about the special rules that apply to articles about American politics. Now you do, so be careful at those articles. As for the closing of the discussion, you would need to look at what the outcome was. In that case there was no outcome, no consensus. It was just closed as "unproductive". But the discussion was leaning toward not keeping it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As MelanieN suggested, please be careful. Unexplained reverts are frowned upon especially in a 1R environment, esp. if they seem to be POV. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what rule I broke with respect to that revert @Drmies, could you please clarify this?ThaiWanIII (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted someone on a contentious topic without any explanation at all, and your "lower taxes" sounds like a talking point, whereas the information you removed was much more specific. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, in other words, I didn't break any of Wikipedia's rules.ThaiWanIII (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting without explanation can be considered disruptive editing, as is POV editing. OH! I see now that this is a dead-end converation--thanks Bbb23. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Notification[edit]

I have filed a dispute on the article of Fidel Castro. I do this because it is recommended "If you begin a discussion of another user on a common notice board, it is expected that you will notify the subject user by posting a message on their talk page". Do not report me as vandal. This is the only instance in which I will write something here. If this is not the way to do it, let me know how it is done. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhaydn2016 (talk • contribs)