User talk:200.42.237.185

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk page rules

You'll achieve more if you stick to our talk page guidelines and not discuss other editors or politics. Discuss actual article improvement. Make actual suggested wordings, with good sources, which we can discuss and use. Violating our rules will only get you blocked or banned, and there's no point in that. Be patient.

Believe me, this matter will end up in the article, but currently things have happened so fast that most of the press and political coverage and comments have been uninformed. Now that the full video is available and the true nature of the sting/scam/disinformation campaign is coming out, we'll end up covering this with all actions better documented. The initial reports were simple slander/libel/misinformation/political character assassination. In cases like this, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and we exercise some patience before acting. Don't push it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAB

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Brand new editors are advised to be cautious when editing hotly disputed topics. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I just happened to have voiced, perhaps too strongly, the need for WP:NPOV. Thanks again. 200.42.237.185 (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Dishonest use of FactCheck.org

(possible personal attack by BullRangifer)

Your SYNTH violation has been noted in this section. I hope you are able to see that such use of sources is dishonest and forbidden here. FactCheck.org comes to the opposite conclusion of what you included. That violates NPOV. If you'll look at the notification/warning immediately above, such editing is immediately blockable by any admin, so I'll ping EdJohnston so he can evaluate this.

So far all your edits on this subject have been strongly partisan, one-sided, and your comments tendentious and antagonistic toward other editors who do not share your POV. I'm seeing a battlefield attitude and competency issues, all in the context of BLP issues. If this happened in a less contentious and less sensitive area, we might be more patient, but this is so serious that either a topic ban or block should be considered. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It is quite a fact that most of the comments here have been made by you, for explicitly calling you on the Planned Parenthood Talk Page when you have been wrong and for what could constitute revenge edits where you only delete, not correct, what you believe shines a bad light on Planned Parenthood. Please do remember WP:WORLD Others have posted about this behavior of yours in your very own Talk Page in the past, I am not the only one. Sorry if this seems personal, but it is not, WP should always be neutral, even when that hurts your favorite organizations. And just go to Planned Parenthood's Talk Page where it is clearly seen there was no dishonest use of a source, even more when I was the one bringing this source, which you clearly did not want to use. This is, at all lights, an attempt bu you, the more experience editor to bully me into not countering your arguments due to our apparent political inclinations. You are definitely trying to shine a bad light here by posting such an inflammatory title on this section. 200.42.237.185 (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You missed my comment

Your comment ignores the opening of my previous comment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe I did answer without ignoring your comments, all of them. Check Planned Parenthood's Talk Page and review it. 200.42.237.185 (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You're being discussed

Your editing of abortion-related articles is being discussed at User talk:EdJohnston#IP hopper whom you have warned makes personal attacks. You may respond there if you wish. As you can see, a number of IPs have been listed in that thread. It would be helpful if you would disclose whether the other IPs are also you. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)