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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:33, 12 September 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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

SPECIFICO talk 22:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to say don't worry about the inflation reduction act article changes. Specifico is correct in noting that the for letter has both consensus and has been in the article for a while. The only way the RFC would affect that is if a new consensus to exclude came out of the RfC (not likely) or if we get a consensus where to include the content. Thus they are right to keep the content in. While it certainly looks like the RfC will result in a consensus to include the against letter, the idea of the RfC process is too wait for it to complete before evaluating consensus. While sometimes SNOW or a capitulation of the minority side does result in an early consensus, there is no harm in waiting for the RfC to be closed before making the change. Springee (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay! I figured that if something is currently under debate, it would be policy not to include it until the RfC is over, and wasn't aware that it's done the way you described. Thank you for telling me! - LilySophie (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LilySophie. Looks like you usually use edit summaries, so your edit at Weather Underground may have been a one-off. Just in case, here's a reminder that they're especially important when reverting. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LilySophie! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Ku Klux Klan several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Ku Klux Klan, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. And please: Personal attacks like calling another editor's edit "vandalism" are to be avoided, see WP:PA.. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ku Klux Klan. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Cakelot1 (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LilySophie: you've already made 4 reverts in the last hour, which puts you in breach of WP:3RR. Please self revert your most recent revert as a sign of good faith. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for self reverting. Also please note, admins at WP:AN3 take a dim view of editors who wait 24 hours before resuming a prior edit war per WP:GAME, and ordinarily treat this as a continuation of the pre-existing 3RR violation. I would strongly recommend that you do not do what you've said at Talk:Ku Klux Klan, and instead engage meaningfully with the multiple editors there who disagree with your interpretation of MOS:TERRORIST. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: That's fine, since admins take a positive view of editors who revert, even repeatedly so, changes made to Wikipedia's articles that are not in line with its rules and have not been given reasons that are in line with its rules even after some time to do so was given. - LilySophie (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. While there are 8 exemptions to 3RR, edit warring over an interpretation of MOS:TERRORIST is not one of those. While the content in question is contentious, it is not a BLP issue, nor is there any obvious vandalism, spam, or copyright concerns. This is a content dispute through and through. I again recommend that you do not make any further edits regarding that content, without first gaining a consensus for it at the talk page. As things appear to stand right now by my eyes as an uninvolved editor, there seems to be a consensus that the version you were reverting against was fine.

If you want your version to become the consensus version, you need to convince the editors present on the article talk page why it is an improvement. Simply asserting that it is resolving a MOS guideline issue is not convincing, as you need to demonstrate why the current state of the article contravenes that guideline. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: Again, perfectly fine, since the discussion so far is not over an interpretation of MOS:TERRORIST but over an editor wanting to make changes in violation of it, with no interpretation of it being given. Consensus is not required for the reversion of changes made in violation of Wikipedia's rules and without reasons given to show how these changes are actually in line with Wikipedia's rules. - LilySophie (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. As far as I can tell, the article has said the Klan is a white supremacist terrorist hate group in the lead since 17 February 2021, and until you challenged it yesterday it had remained in the lead without any issue.

Consensus is required for any edit on Wikipedia, as long as it does not violate certain policies (WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:COPYVIO are the big three). When it comes to guidelines like the Manual of Style, consensus can ignore it, and consensus on how to interpret it can vary from page to page and content area to content area. Looking at the content you are trying to remove, there is no V issue, as the content is sourced and verifiable. There is no BLP issue, because BLP does not apply to organisations. I'm currently running a COPYVIO check on the article, but given the length that will take time, however at a glance, the disputed content does not appear to be a COPYVIO in either preferred version.

As an uninvolved editor, I am telling you right now that this is a dispute over interpretation of MOS:TERRORIST. Aside from mention of the 3RR rule, discussion has primarily focused over how to interpret TERRORIST, specifically the sentence Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a ...terrorist... – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. and how to interpret widely used.

Your easiest path to resolving this in your favour, is to demonstrate that terrorist is not widely used to describe the Klan. You already seem familiar with some of the sources here, as you've added content that the US government has described them as such, and another editor on the talk page has brought up the SPLC's description of the group. All you need to do is focus on that, and let consensus form around what the sources actually say about the group. Leaving ultimatums that you will revert to your version again tomorrow, and that there is very much a deadline is not helpful, and will likely see an uninvolved admin blocking you to prevent disruption, even if you are later proven right. Just focus on the sources, and you will do fine. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: This is false, as WP:CON states that consensus only matters so long as it "respect[s] Wikipedia's policies and guidelines," which the edits in question did not, and the interpretation you imagined about MOS:TERRORIST has not occurred. - LilySophie (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong about the policy in question. It doesn't support your position. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on PinkNews. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]