Your recent editing history 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. CUPIDICAE💕 16:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae:, you falsely claim "other editors disagree" when there is only you; you act in self-interest by being a party to disagreement and then a judge & executioner of this WP:EDITWAR warning instead of asking another editor to be a judge; thus you abuse your prerogative in regard to WP:EDITWAR warning to enforce your stake in the apparent disagreement.

Your 1st revert (19:14, 14 April 2022‎) was w/o reading sec. 5. I addressed it. (Also we say in English "according to whom and not who unless you mean the World Health Org.) In the 2nd revert (23:04, 15 April 2022‎) you made arbitrary & unsubstantiated claims indicating not understanding the WP's rule that I subsequently addressed. In the 3rd revert (13:42, 16 April 2022‎) you confirmed not understanding the WP's rule, were negative & magisterial indicating no desire for a constructive discussion. And then you practically abused WP:EDITWAR warning to reinforce your negative & magisterial position, which indicated no desire for a (constructive) discussion against WP's recommendation "...to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors" quoted by you above. Ironic???

Your reverts do not indicate even an once of good will to discuss anything not only constructively, but at all. Your reverts are only negative. Your reverts do not contribute to WP, but disrupt constructive edits of other editor. It is you who should receive WP:EDITWAR warning for, as you stated "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", as your behavior seems to indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. I will ask WP to give you such a warning for that reason.

I have added references to a university dissertation and a scientific art. in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. Is it enough for you or do I need to find a reference authored by a Nobel Price winner to satisfy you view on what constitutes a substantial reference? Please, just say a word and I will try.--71.190.206.215 (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Julia Haart. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. CUPIDICAE💕 20:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae:, you right, I am sorry. My oversight and omission. I was to replace "[...] acumen in re: WP:RSP to see how [...] his reverts has been" with "how much content-based has been the reverts", but the Edit summary field has a bad feature. Namely, when the number of characters allowed is exceeded, it jumps to the beginning. After it had jumped, I noticed something needing to be corrected at the beginning and forgot to change that unsavory phrase farther on. I apologize again, but errors happen. We need to be vigilant and sensitive. Sincerely,--71.190.206.215 (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae:, on the 2nd thought my statement "I was testing [re:Praxidicae's] acumen in re: WP:RSP to see how shallow & then personal his reverts has been" at Julia Haart is a question on your reverts and not on you personally.

If your reverts had been according to WP:RSP, then not shallow "(s)" or personal "(p)" and the statement is not an attack (WP:RSP->~{[s] or [p]}). The implication in the opposite direction: if your reverts had not been shallow or personal, than in compliance with WP:RSP and the statement was not an attack either (~{[s] or [p]}->WP:RSP). If your reverts had not been according to WP:RSP (and thus shallow and personal), then you violated WP's rules and my statement was not personal, but against non-compliance with the rules ({[s] or [p] or ~WP:RSP}->~personal). (Quite demanding to understand.)

So, in any case my statement was not a personal attack as per formal logic, as not an attack or not personal. In order to be, it must be both an attack and personal. It may look like one, but the careful consideration proves otherwise. However, taking an offence might actually suggest that you could have been aware of not complying with WP:RSP for reasons inconsistent with WP:GOODFAITH. Otherwise, you would not have a reason the feel attacked. That is suggested by formal logic. Nevertheless, it would have been better, if I had used "inconsistent with WP:GOODFAITH" instead of "shallow & then personal". But replacing the latter with the former immediately shows that it was not a personal attack. Otherwise, after the replacing it would still look, like a personal attack. Formal logic is merciless.--71.190.206.215 (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content which gives undue weight to some statement about a living person, as you did at Julia Haart. On Wikipedia we take particular care over articles about living people.

New information, even if referenced, should be added only if noteworthy, relevant and documented in multiple reliable third-party sources. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and material should not be added if it is only gossip or has little longer-term importance, or if the only sourcing is tabloid journalism.

If challenged, the onus is on the editor who adds the content to justify its retention. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 08:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KyleJoan: do you really think that 68-yer old PR Newswire and only 1 of 2 main ones next to Business Wire is not a reliable source according to WP:NEWSORG (in WP:RS), which states: "[n]ews reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact"? Is it not clear English or being 1 of 2 biggest and 68-year old is not established enough? @Praxidicae: just reverted my edit claiming that PR NewsWire is not reliable or apparently not established according... to him? But he actually claims that "press releases are not reliable", i.e. all, contradicting not only the rule in WP:NEWSORG, but also in press release deeming it a primary source obviously w/ the exception of WP:NEWSORG. The same was with his reverts on my edits of Salt Lake Tabernacle in regard to WP:MOSLEAD. Can anyone make his own rules for WP or interpret them arbitrarily even, if good faith? His reverts likely violated WP's rules & seem harmful, as WP:Vandalism#Blanking, illegitimate. Could you help?

You misunderstood the purpose of adding encyclopedic dates, ownership and transfer details to the art. It is not WP:UNDUE, but the opposite. Having them allows to see accurately the sequence of the events, their merit, inter-connections, dependencies, and the whole dynamic. You can not get it reading unreliable/misleading tabloids. Both the ownership and amount of transfer are important facts to present the full picture. Without the info on the ownership her transfer could be deemed justified as per her false claims of 50 % co-ownership (in fact just 50 shares). Without the info on the transfer, his lawsuit could look like a petty retaliation for the divorce filing despite pertaining to a large sum. Facts are important, and WP is to provide them, but all and not only some distorting the whole or allowing for unnecessary interpretations WP denies by its WP:AIM. The firing and divorce were not presented accurately or neutrally without the dates and details I added. Someone who did that was not neutral and @Praxidicae: effectively defends that non-neutral content. I hope you do not. You seem like an honest and diligent editor. BTW, I already admitted making the unsavory comment, but it was a mistake I apologized for (see above). Sincerely,--71.190.206.215 (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources, we must not cite sources that quote PR Newswire unless there is evidence—not in the byline but the body of the article—of independent authorship and editorial review in the article you're citing. Why would PR Newswire itself be considered reliable? The New York Post is 220 years old. How reliable is that source?

The firing and divorce were not presented accurately or neutrally without the dates and details I added. Which reliable source verifies these details? As it stands, you've repeatedly included violations of the biographies policy by poorly sourcing those claims. Please use Talk:Julia Haart (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) to propose any new material. More violations will be reported. Thanks. KyleJoan^talk 02:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KyleJoan:, WP:PUS, which you used as an argument, refers to: 1 News media, 2 Funeral homes, 3 Scholarly journals, 4 Wikipedia mirrors, 5 Online sources, 6 Self-published books, 7 Who's who scams, 8 Fansites, 9 Personal communication, but not to 'news organizations' (PR Newswire) covered by WP:NEWSORG and NOT WP:PUS. I hope you understand that 'news organizations' (WP:NEWSORG) and 'news media' (WP:PUS) are 2 different terms covering 2 different types of business entities. Thus, you falsely justified above the reverting of my 20:39, 17 April 2022 edit by @Praxidicae: whose claim that "press releases are not reliable" in regard to PR Newswire is contradicted by a direct statement in WP:NEWSORG.

You did not have a valid argument, so you throw anything by a kitchen sink (WP:PUS) maybe hoping that 'news media' sounds close enough to 'news organizations'. That indicates not a WP:GOODFAITH and indirectly confirms validity of my accusation. I will repeat for you: PR Newswire is a reliable source of facts under the direct statement in WP:NEWSORG ("[n]ews reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact"), because PR Newswire is 1 of 2 biggest, 68 years old, and thus well established, as required by WP:NEWSORG. Oxford Dictionary defines 'well established' as "having a respected position, because of being successful, etc. over a long period". Since 68 years is a long period and 1 of 2 biggest means successful, then facts from PR Newswire are "generally considered to be reliable" according to WP:NEWSORG and English from Oxford Dictionary. Got it?--71.190.206.215 (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being old and big does not make a source reliable. Again, the New York Post is 220 years old, and it is the fourth most distributed newspaper in the US. Is the New York Post reliable? While I find your assertion that PR Newswire is a news outlet concerning, I believe there is nothing left to say to further the discussion. I'll simply revert and report future violations of the BLP policy. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 04:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KyleJoan:, "[n]ews reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact" in WP:NEWSORG refers only to news organizations, i.e. outlets, agencies, such as "Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press", as stipulated there. New York Post or other newspapers are not one of them. WP:NEWSORG covers only news agencies and similar "news outlets" under the umbrela of 'news organizations'. Recipients and users of news from news organizations are covered by the term 'news media' in WP:PUS. Maybe you are missed that distinction? Can you consult someone... reliable who distinguishes between legal terms on regular basis, e.g. a lawyer? 'News organizations (outlets)' and 'news media' are not overlapping terms in WP. The former has WP:NEWSORG and the latter - WP:PUS; 2 separate rules not to be mixed up.--71.190.206.215 (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KyleJoan:, I got cleverly derailed from analyzing the used by you rule in WP:PUS by your statement as follows. "Why would PR Newswire itself be considered reliable? The New York Post is 220 years old. How reliable is that source? That pertained to WP:NEWSORG and not WP:PUS, which I should have analyzed instead of WP:NEWSORG. It was a clever statement only subtly suggested to me without saying, as an argument to buy, for apparent support of inconsistency of PR Newswire's art w/ WP:PUS. Still inconsistent w/ WP:GOODFAITH though not technically. Brilliant fooling me. You are quite clever, but I am learning & catching up.

The rule of WP:PUS says that [s]pecific examples [of WP:PUS] to treat carefully include: and so [a]ny article citing PR Newswire, [...] should be considered a primary source unless there is evidence—not in the byline but the body of the article—of independent authorship and editorial review in the article you're citing. The cited PR Newswire is a reliable under that rule, as a secondary source, because art's body stipulates independent authorship in the phrase "'says attorney Lanny J. Davis" and its editorial review is assured by the sentence "[t]o confirm this is so, see the corporate legal documents here" leading to 2 primery sources the art's text is consistent with. So, could you explain how that PR Newswire's art. is inconsistent with WP:PUS when it meets WP:PUS's requirements?

Also why did you say "must not cite sources" when the rule says "treat carefully"? That looks like a lie in a support of the revert w/o justification in WP's rules. Doesn't it? Also, your initial argument of undue weight looks like grabbing "a kitchen sink" to support unwarranted reverts in violation of WP:GOODFAITH, esp. considering that some parts of my edits have remained. I would appreciate your answer. Thanks.--71.190.206.215 (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lanny Davis is EWG's attorney speaking on behalf of the company. No independent authorship there. He is not part of PR Newswire's editorial staff. No editorial review there. Please try Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for future questions, as I don't believe our direct interaction has been productive. KyleJoan^talk 01:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KyleJoan:, no, we are productive. I carefully consider what you are saying. I agree w/ you 100 %. Lanny Davis is a primary source independent from PR Newswire ("independent authorship") and by quoting him and checking consistency of what he says w/ referenced docs, which are a primary too, ("editorially reviewing in the article") PR Newswire is reliable secondary source according to WP:PUS. Right? Do you understand?--71.190.206.215 (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 02:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Given your extensive discussions about sources, I feel it necessary to alert you to these discretionary sanctions. If you continue to use poor sources for a BLP, I will block you from editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir:, I was not aware (no excuse) that such a specific list of liked and disliked sources exists on WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources. Had I known, I would not have waisted my time on considering the WP:PUS provisions of independent authorship and editorial review in the article deeming PR Newswire reliable when both met that is flatly denied in the list in WP:PRNEWSWIRE. Such a duality might be viewed as a double standard, but since WP:PRNEWSWIRE's apparent lack of credibility is deemed by WP's consensus (despite WP:PUS), which rules at WP, I will adhere to it, esp. being only a guest at WP and editing sporadically & coincidentally. Julia Haart looks already better and less confusing then when I started. Anyway, my IP address changes often and soon I will somebody else. Thank you.--71.190.206.215 (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for continued additions of unsourced materials, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

EvergreenFir (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."