User talk:WSDavitt

Your recent editing history at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Seconding Rrburke's warning. If you want to propose a section, do it on the talk page. Also on Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations too EvergreenFir (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

==Smear campaign==

The public allegations of misconduct against Donald Trump ^[1] is an example of a smear campaign. Other politicians, such as Bill Clinton and Gary Hart, have been the target of the same campaign tactic. Smear campaigns are associated with yellow journalism which is a type of journalism that presents little well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines, scandal-mongering and sensationalism. For example during Gary Hart's 1988 presidential campaign, the New York Post reported on its front page big, black block letters: "GARY: I'M NO WOMANIZER."^[2][3]

See also: Gary Hart § 1988 presidential campaign

See also: Swift Vets and POWs for Truth

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Please explain why it is inappropriate to note the issue of smear campaigns on this and similar articles. Smear campaigns are just a campaign tactic. It is helpful for young readers to understand that this tactic is commonly used.

I make no comment regarding the accuracy or validity of the allegations.

In addition, the editors who deleted the content did not attempt to improve the article by adding references, they merely deleted it.

I believe the issue of smear campaigns is important and it is important to link articles in Wikipedia as readers can become informed.

Positive comments and suggestions are welcome! WSDavitt (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The main issue is that it is original research. We need reliable sources (preferably secondary sources) to explicitly call it a "smear campaign". As frustrating as it is, you cannot apply the concept of a smear campaign to these events. Sources must do that for you. But the other main issue here is the edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I respectfully disagree. I think the section of the article can be improved by adding references. Deletion is inappropriate. I have added a reference to the statement by the Trump campaign stating the allegations are a "an attempt to smear" the candidate.

WSDavitt (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:WSDavitt reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: ). Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Great idea! Go for it. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 19:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Doug Weller talk 20:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I've been blocked for posting the following addition to the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations wikipedia article.

[forum post redacted Drmies (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)]

WSDavitt (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• You're blocked for one of the most blatant examples of edit warring I've seen in a while. You may claim to have no interest in promoting the guilt of this or that person, yet you kept posting your section all over Wikipedia. Well, talk pages are not a forum--nor is your free speech being repressed, or the actual edit washed away: it's still there in the history, as many times as you stuck it in the article. While you are blocked, talk pages are for requesting unblocks and such things, including friendly banter with some and discussion with others. They are not here to help you spread what you apparently wanted spread; thus, I am removing your access to this talk page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Assuming you're genuine and not just trying to keep false allegations on this article for as much time as possible, read WP:EDITWAR. At this point you have imposed your changes far too many times against consensus. This should be handled by discussing it on the talk page, and only once there is consensus should it the be edited in. You clearly don't have consensus, and you have massively exceeded the three-revert rule, which means someone will block you, regardless of what I want. These edits are not making the article more balanced. There is no evidence of a smear campaign. These are multiple independent news organizations, and false sexual assault allegations are much rarer than true ones. Powerful people deter people from reporting about sexual assault because of the damage that can happen to their lives. It is entirely plausible these women only chose to own up recently. If you want to prove a collaborated smear campaign, you have to provide reliable evidence so other people can verify it. See WP:VERIFY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:365C:2F00:B042:17A2:80D6:F71E (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what comment you are referring to? What article? Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

The section being deleted is noted below. The section merely provides the response from the Trump campaign to make the Wikipedia article more balanced.

It's pretty innocuous as the focus is campaign tactics. I'm make not comments about the validity of the accusation against Mr. Trump, Mr. Clinton or Mr. Hart. Comments?

Category:Smear campaigns, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. gobonobo ^{+ c} 20:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

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 all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 that 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.

Doug Weller talk 06:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, WSDavitt. You have new messages at Rrburke's talk page.
Message added 13:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Rrburke (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! Unfortunately, your request has been declined. The reason is shown on the main FFU page. The request will be archived shortly; if you cannot find it on that page, it will probably be at this month's archive. Regards, --Majora (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

After reading the article Post-assault treatment of sexual assault victims, I would strongly urge you to read the articles about righting great wrongs and advocacy. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Post-assault treatment of sexual assault victims is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-assault treatment of sexual assault victims until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kleuske (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I noticed that this edit removed a bunch of lawsuit info, junk bond rating, office closures--stuff you had worked on--and added a large laudatory section on corporate responsibility. Did you see the edit(s) subsequent to yours? Brianhe (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks for the comment! I really appreciate your input and agree completely.

It appears there is censorship going on with respect to the article. Information about the fraud lawsuit is being deleted. In addition, information about the company's poor financial performance has been deleted. It's a bit ridiculous that the Wikipedia article includes a discussion of freibergite, pyrite, chalcopyrite, galena, and sphalerite but failed to note that the company has incurred losses of over $US10 billion during the past 6 years.

(By the way, the story about the Tasiast mine is fascinating. Kinross Gold purchased it for about $7 billion in 2010 even though the valuation reports (NI-43-101) stated it was only worth $1.5 billion. Kinross subsequently incurred billions impairment charges. In addition, they've invested billions trying to develop the mine.)

I also find some of the content is inappropriate. For example, the following technical discussion about the gold deposits:

"At Kupol, gold and silver occur as native gold, gold-silver alloy electrum, acanthite as well as silver-rich sulfosalts. Dvoinoye, on the other hand is a low sulfidation epithermal gold-silver vein deposit, and notably counts with appreciable free gold in parts of the deposit. Ore minerals and sulfides in the vein include freibergite, pyrite, chalcopyrite, galena, and sphalerite."

And the way the editing was done is suspicious. Instead of updating a sentence or a paragraph, the entire article was deleted and replaced.

The end result is that the article is biased and does not have helpful information regarding this failing company.

Any suggestions on how to challenge this censorship? Thanks! WSDavitt (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm watching your talk page so we can just continue here. Right now the editor who made the changes on Kinross is answering some questions about other suspicious editing. The conversation just started, after I asked you the question here. This issue will probably be make its way to the other conversation. You can join in, or wait and see how things work out. Thanks for your reply. - Brianhe (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Canadian values is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian values until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Taking Back My Life: The Nancy Ziegenmeyer Story (1992)
"True story about a rape victim who took a stand that rape is never the victim's fault and inspired many other victims who felt shame about what had happened to them to speak out."Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Done! Thanks so much!!! Nancy Ziegenmeyer's story is exactly on point with the Post-assault treatment of sexual assault victims article! WSDavitt (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rape tree is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape tree until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Fuzheado. I noticed that you made a change to an article, 2017 Manchester Arena incident, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please don't add unsourced material about deaths Fuzheado | Talk 00:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a work in progress ... I've added the reference as is my usual practice. Talk WSDavitt (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello WSDavitt,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged 2017 Mississauga Restaurant Bombing for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, 2018 Mississauga explosion.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Anaxial (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

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 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions - such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks - on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

— Newslinger talk 15:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)