If you have any questions leave 4 of these ~ indents after your question

Tired of clicking on outdated links so I update them so that they have ssl encryption.

So, I don't know how to encrypt anything and editing wikipedia to update urls so that they have ssl encryption is not encrypting something according to my limited knowledge on these subjects. Editing wikipedia to update ssl encryption means adding a s to http:// so that it is https://. The reason why I edit wikipedia to update ssl encryption for urls is because when I am reading and clicking through random wikipedia pages I speed read through them because thats just how i read everything and I don't want to have to click through a prompt that usually says something like this connection isn't secure, I'm not sure why I get these prompts about the connection not being secure when I click on a url without ssl encryption but I'm assuming it might be because one of my many browser extensions is malfunctioning or it might be because everything about the device I'm using is outdated. So after clicking and reading through random wikipedia pages I just go back to the wikipedia pages that had urls without ssl encyrption and update all the urls without ssl encryption on those wikipedia pages the same day. This is also what I do to place archived versions of websites that are behind paywalls on wikipedia, after I clicked and read through random wikipedia pages I just go back to the wikipedia pages I found that had websites that are blocked by paywalls and place the archived versions of those websites there on those wikipedia pages the same day. Because these archives of these websites that are blocked by paywalls already exists I can easily place them on the random wikipedia pages that I am clicking and reading through where I find websites that are blocked by paywalls so that nobody has to pay to visit a website.

On the 20th of February you undid an edit made by Gbsat60 on Lucas Kunce, who had removed text in Kunce's campaign position list indicating he supports teaching CRT, because the source "literally says this". - While I understand that a casual reading of the source material can be interpreted this way, the source material here doesn't literally state that at all: It states that Kunce holds a position that "trends left" on "teaching CRT in schools". A common position that "trends left" on this issue, that many other Democratic politicians hold, is opposing laws that ban or restrict teaching about (historical and/or current) (racial) discrimination (and thus, basically all civil rights) in schools, which have been passed in many states under the guise of fighting CRT in schools. I would not be able to tell you from this article whether Kunce holds a position like this, whether he supports teaching CRT in schools, or whether he has some completely different related position that could be labelled left wing.

Needless to say: You didn't adequately check the citation, before reverting Gbsat60's edit. Please try to be aware of citations that use misleading language like this one, to imply more meaning then what was actually stated.

As for whether or not Kunce actually supports teaching CRT in schools: I am not sure about that. I tried and failed to find other reliable citations corroborating this supposed position within a reasonable amount of time. - He may or may not actually hold such a position. If it turns out that he does; the position will undoubtedly be added back with proper sourcing at some point. In the meantime, I've removed the statement about his position on CRT in schools. Wilburg22 - The insufferable potato! (Click here for my talk page!) 04:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, I have no stance on this "critical race theory" topic at all and I am not someone who is political. I don't make political edits on wikipedia. I edit wikipedia to update urls so that they have ssl encryption and I also place archived versions of websites that are blocked by paywalls onto wikipedia. I could start making political edits on wikipedia, but its just that I decided not to, because I don't understand politics very well which is also why I'm not political. The reason I visited Kunce's wikipedia page to begin with was to place an archived version of a website that was blocked by a paywall because earlier in the day when I first visited Kunce's page while I was clicking and reading through random wikipedia pages on february 20th I encountered multiple websites on different wikipedia pages that were blocked by paywalls so after searching online for solutions for how to bypass these paywalls I decided to use existing archives that already exists on archive.org and archive.is. That is when I noticed and looked at Gbsat60's edit and realized that content from Kunce's political positions section was removed without a sufficient reason which is why I then decided to revert that edit and place that content back on Kunce's wikipedia page. I do acknowledge the message your conveying about the importance of opposing laws that ban or restrict the teaching of historical and current racial discrimination and the teaching of all civil rights and I also acknowledge the importance of opposing laws that ban or restrict a woman from choosing to have an abortion. The reason I reverted Gbsat60's edit is because there isn't a sufficient reason provided for removing the content the content that Gbsat60 removed. Gbsat60 removed that content because Gbsat60's opinion was that Kunce supporting teaching critical race theory in schools was a "false assertion" even though the content Gbsat60 removed had a citation that did state that Kunce does support critical race theory being taught in schools. You stated that I should be aware of citations that imply more meaning than what was actually stated but how would you know the conversation that Kunce had with Politico. Unless you were there when Kunce spoke with Politico there is no way you could know. Politico is considered a good source for info on american politics on wikipedia so I think their reporting is accurate and they would not have added that info in the article if it wasn't true. The full sentence of this specific Politico article states that "On the other hand, slight majorities also thought the state government should ban abortions after eight weeks of pregnancy and that “critical race theory” should not be taught in schools — both issues where Kunce trends to the left. " and looking at Kunce's stance on abortion you can see that he does oppose banning abortions after 8 weeks, so when this specific sentence of this specific Politico article is stating that Kunce trends to the left it means that Kunce opposes banning abortion after 8 weeks and that Kunce does support teaching critical race theory in schools. So the article does state that Kunce supports teaching critical race theory in schools even if they are reporting it in a less clear way. I don't think this article portrays Kunce in a bad way and I think it tries to portray Kunce in a good way so I don't think this article is a bad article. Earl753 (talk) 05:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]