Hello, Sumstream, 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:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! John of Reading (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I could be a helpful contributor, but the bullying and other editorial problems at the Current Events Portal have gotten to be too much for me to be able to deal with. I am sorry. Sumstream (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can see here that this event really did occur. Although we can debate over the status of Zerohedge, the event still took place. How should this be handled considering no other sources are reporting on the matter? 2603:3027:F03:DD00:F483:ECBB:793C:D2F1 (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for discussing this with me. Unfortunately, I can agree with your frustration, as there have been events in the past that I could verify had occurred but could never find a source that is broadly considered reliable discussing them. The consensus I've seen before is that because Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS it is not within the scope of the Current events Portal to go looking for under-reported news stories no matter how significant the actual event in question is. The headlines posted here are more about "what news is being most notably discussed among reliable news sources" and not "what is every important event that has transpired at this day" in order to facilitate collaboration because different editors will consider the same events of varying importance.

I apologize for the inconvenience and thank you again for your time in reading and hopefully understanding this situation. Sumstream (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not be rude and obnoxious in edit summaries as you were in, this summary. Edit Summaries cannot be edited or toned down at a later date. If you see a problem don't assume it is worthy of you getting rude and upset, this is wholly unnecessary. Fix it the issue, assume good faith, and discuss it with the editor. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to calm down. This edit summary is completely over the top and out of all proportions to the issues you are trying to correct. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Sumstream: Please learn to post to Portal Current Events before posting to Portal Current Events, thank you. Sumstream (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not bite the head off of other users this is hardly a civil way to carry on the Use of block capitals and pseudo-swearing in an edit summary is really not helpful. Having also looked at your history I see you like to use the edit summary to comment on users and add your own commentary, please use the summaries to summarise your edits not to add general commentary on making comments on other users. Those are for user talk pages and article talk pages. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please also be aware the current standard template formatting for the current events nominations is as follows:

'''Politics and elections'''
 *[[Georgian presidential election, 2018]]
 **[[Georgia (country)|Georgia]]n citizens vote in the last presidential election to be decided by [[direct election]]. [https://www.rferl.org/a/last-direct-presidential-election-in-georgia-may-set-a-caucasus-first-/29567315.html (RFE/RL)]

This is different to the most recent edit you did which you used block capitals and alike in the edit summary. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you could review my entire history because all of my edits for about eight years are publicly available because I stay logged in. An ISP editor for a year or less lecturing me about policy on Portal Current Events really needs a dose of realism and familiarity. I mean... you're already trying to come at me templating, it's like I'm actually proud to have been templated by such an obviously-not-showing-the-entirety-of-history Anon editor. I'm assuming good faith and being calm, if you can't tell... I'm sorry for the confusion but the capitals were for the idea of legal prominence in the expectation that an edit war was coming from somebody who didn't care about what was going on in the history. Unfortunately talk page issues are already a huge bugbear on the Current Events portal, maybe you could come up with a brilliant new plan for that, I'd be happy for there to be more constructive dialog on those underused talk pages. But it's a kind of "hole" because the talk pages for individual dates are theoretically where a lot of content should go regarding discussion but things move too fast compared to the regulating and mod3erating infrastructure for how Wikipedia No Time Limit normally works... individual date talk pages are quickly lost to never be seen again. I feel like all the emotion here has come from the faceless numbered being. Sumstream (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind you that you should not engage in personal attacks on other users.

Sentences like this make a large assumption of bad faith:

An ISP editor for a year or less lecturing me about policy...
I mean... you're already trying to come at me templating, it's like I'm actually proud to have been templated by such an obviously-not-showing-the-entirety-of-history Anon editor.

You have strangely assumed some kind of need to jump to the conclusion that an edit war of some kind is about to begin, which is an odd jump to make:

I'm sorry for the confusion but the capitals were for the idea of legal prominence in the expectation that an edit war was coming from somebody who didn't care about what was going on in the history.

You also appear to be engaging is sarcastic derision here:

maybe you could come up with a brilliant new plan for that

I personally think you need to take some time away from Wikipedia and some time away from the current events page. You have shown you are highly stressed and emotional on this issue and that is very unhealthy. I am happy to discuss things with you on a constructive level, but first I think you need a break from Wikipedia as you are clearly not in a calm and rational state of mind. You are jumping to conclusions, launching in to personal attacks, and making rambling edit summaries, all over some what are frankly very minor formatting issues on a small part by a single user. I strongly urge you to take a Wikibreak as you may benefit from it for the sake of your mental health.

I think your current need for a break is summed up by your final sentence which is frankly coming across as unhinged:

I feel like all the emotion here has come from the faceless numbered being.

Please make sure you see to your own health and do not allow this online encyclopaedia to damage your health. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 standard message is designed as an 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 special powers 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 practice;
• 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.

Carter00000 (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]