User talk:UnashamedPapist

Welcome!

Hello, UnashamedPapist!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, 〜 Adflatuss • talk 16:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Hello, I'm Kieraaaa. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kieraaaa (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The modern United Kingdom (even in England) is clearly not under a two-party system. The Liberal Democrats and Reform Party both poll at levels comparable to that of Labour and the Conservatives. Are those sources clearly not outdated? UnashamedPapist (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one article by The New York Times. Does that work? UnashamedPapist (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that would be a good source, just in future put it in the edit summary so it doesn't get removed :) Kieraaaa (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Republican Party (United States). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Skitash (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JohnAdams1800 misrepresented his edits (noted on his talk page) and the consensus for them was fake. @Skitash. Many of the sources cited don't say what's written on the page. That's why I removed it. UnashamedPapist (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring warning

Your recent editing history at Republican Party (United States) 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. Bishonen | tålk 21:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not in an edit war! I explained the situation on the talk page. This was a misunderstanding.

@Neonorange was not aware that this issue had already been discussed:

The changes by JohnAdams1800 were widely opposed by editors (including myself).

Thanks! Happy to discuss this. :) UnashamedPapist (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you're not in an edit war, I can only urge you to read WP:Edit warring and most especially WP:3RR. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong; you will still be blocked if you edit war. Bishonen | tålk 21:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I haven't seen a published rule book for the website anywhere. My bad.

However, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but wouldn't this be a case of #3 under exceptions? UnashamedPapist (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also wondering what should be done if I've made less than three reversions, there's clearly a general agreement that the changes should be reverted, the sources don't say what is claimed, and the editor who made them is now banned.

I want to help and improve the website! I'm just not sure what to do in a case like this. The reversion itself was a clear misunderstanding. Are we supposed to wait until the editor subsequently responds on my personal wall/article's wall?

I'm confused right now. UnashamedPapist (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the changes by JohnAdams weren't widely opposed, you must be joking. The latest "discussion" you refer to, Talk:Republican Party (United States)#JohnAdams1800's misleading edits, consists of one post by you! You certainly do not have consensus, or "general agreement", and it doesn't matter if the editor (who?) who originally made these edits is banned, considering that you are edit warring with several respectable users who are by no means banned. Bishonen | tålk 03:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I would like to note that JohnAdams did have a serious problem with WP:OR and misrepresenting sources on other articles. I do not completely agree with Papist, but I see where they're coming from. The edits they made might not have been widely opposed, as per Papist, but they were part of a series of disruptive behavior that led to a one-month and later an indef-block. At least in my eyes these changes should be WP:TNTed and then redone by another editor that isn't basing their edits off a user with the issues described previously. Thanks, Cutlass ^Ciera 12:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for edit warring, as you did at Pope Leo XIV. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, the mass revert could have been a visual editor issue. Please be very careful with saving changes on fast moving pages. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was in visual editor, yes. There was no intentional reversion of the page. I was not even aware anything was deleted. UnashamedPapist (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. If I remember correctly, it should have warned you that there were intervening changes while you were editing. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop and discuss

You are running gung ho into making changes, and you're at some points using my name to try and support them. I support absolutely nothing you've done. You are going about it all the wrong ways, and you are now edit warring again - while 3 reverts in 24 hours is a bright line, you are liable to be blocked for edit warring for continuing to revert your preferred version in while a discussion is ongoing on the talkpage. You don't get to just force your preferred version while discussion is ongoing. If you are reverted, you should get a consensus on the talkpage before you reinstate it - ever. Not just try once a day to get your preferred version is - see WP:SLOWEW. If you keep up this behavior of trying to right the "great wrong" you see of the GOP not being displayed in only glowing terms that make it look good, then you are going to quickly find yourself topic banned from the entire area of American Politics. If you cannot contribute constructively in the topic area, either find something else to edit or prepare for that eventuality.

And please stop namedropping me as if even if I am not wholeheartedly opposed to some of your proposed changes I support them. It's not appropriate - because there's dozens of other people you aren't namedropping that are not in support of your edits. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reiterate the above comment. Please chill out. Otherwise you're going to end up banned very quickly. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Just giving you this alert as you complained above at not having seen a "rulebook" - you should strongly consider especially heeding the advice to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you comment all edits which are not minor

For example to make it quicker for me to understand what you are changing on Iran Chidgk1 (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]