User talk:Hudsonyards411

July 2025

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Evie Magazine, 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. Timtjtim (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Evie page is being targeted for vandalism by people who hate the publication. I have attempted to add verified, factual information to the page with sourcing from The New York Times, among others, and the edits keep getting reverted. There are numerous false statements in the wikipedia. I understand the editors have a bias and don't like it, but it's against policy to post lies and false information that can easily be disproven. Hudsonyards411 (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hudsonyards411! Thanks for replying to these concerns. I understand that reversions can be a frustrating experience. I also understand that you disagree with its balance.

I trust that you're acting in good faith and that you're leaning into the Wikipedia spirit of editing boldly. It's important to remember that no one person owns an article and issues like balance must be managed through consensus, and this dialog is an important first step. If all else fails, there is a dispute resolution process to help editors iron out disagreements like this, if they can't resolve it themselves.

Specific recommendations based on your edits

1. When new users remove existing, properly sourced material, it does catch the attention of other editors. I recommend flagging your concerns to address specific deletions in the Talk page (e.g., removing discussion of 28byEvie), allowing for discussion, then beginning edits. Once consensus is reached, it would be beneficial to mention the consensus built in the Talk page as part of your edit note.

2. While you mentioned the New York Times, there isn't actually a source attributed to the NYT provided. For that to be retained, please include a reference that follows guidelines.

3. The label 'alt-right' appears to be a point of contention. Because the current designation is fairly cited, it is likely to be retained by other editors when it is simply deleted. Alternatively, I might recommend creating a section such as 'Criticism' to capture those perspectives and build consensus Talk page for an appropriate lead.

Reminder on edit warring

As a reminder, I would caution you against additional edits in the short-term, as you're likely running up against the three revert rule. This cool-off period does not apply to the Talk page, so I recommend opening up the discussion in the Talk page in the meantime.

- Mad Jim Bey talk 17:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Evie Magazine, you may be blocked from editing. Gommeh 🎮 16:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I want to emphasize that my goal is to improve the page in line with Wikipedia's policies, particularly neutral point of view (NPOV), which requires that articles fairly represent all significant views published by reliable sources without bias.

However, I believe the current version of the Evie Magazine page does not fully adhere to NPOV. It seems heavily weighted toward critical perspectives, with numerous statements that appear unsubstantiated or misleading based on available sources. For instance, I've tried to incorporate verified details from top-tier outlets like The New York Times, which provide context on the magazine's founding and content, but these edits have been reverted without clear justification. This pattern suggests a lack of balance, as the page emphasizes negative aspects disproportionately compared to other similar Wikipedia articles I've seen.

Wikipedia's guidelines stress that content must be neutral and verifiable, not slanted in any direction. If there are false facts or undue emphasis on one side, they should be addressed through discussion and sourcing, rather than repeated reverts. I'd like to work collaboratively to fix this—perhaps by starting a section on the article talk page to review specific issues, cite reliable sources, and build consensus.

If you have suggestions on how to proceed or specific reasons for the reverts, I'd appreciate hearing them. Let's aim to make the page more accurate and neutral for readers. Hudsonyards411 (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Evie Magazine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Mad Jim Bey talk

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Please stop. If you continue to make unconstructive edits to Wikipedia using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology), as you did at Talk:Evie Magazine, you may be blocked from editing. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]