User talk:NoMoreBu11

Hello, NoMoreBu11, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Ahunt (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started

Finding your way around

Editing articles

Getting help

Frequently asked questions
Cheatsheet
Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
Help pages
Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

Community Portal
Join a WikiProject
Follow Wikipedia etiquette
Practice civility
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

March 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Blond. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. TylerBurden (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blond

You appear to be engaged in an edit war on Blond. Please use the article's talk page to resolve any content disputes. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
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.

Bon courage (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:NoMoreBu11 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: ). Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at John Ioannidis. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

NoMoreBu11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The biographies of living persons policy clearly states: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard."

I reviewed the four sources provided in the article. Not one of them clearly supports the claims made regarding the person in question. To claim someone is a conspiracy theorist (especially within the scientific community) is a serious accusation. And so yes, I did break a rule, but only to enforce another more important one.

The two editors I had a disagreement with have seemingly no interest in discussing the subject, and have themselves been involved in an edit war since 2023. NoMoreBu11 (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is factually correct and reflects the sources to say that the man at issue has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories. It doesn't name him "a conspiracy theorist". Therefore it is not a BLP violation you are permitted to edit war over. Good block. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wikipedia does not claim the guy "is a conspiracy theorist", but – at a remove – that "he has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories about COVID-19 policies" which is well-sourced as well as trivially correct. These kinds of distinction matter on Wikipedia you know. This has been previously raised at BLP/N[1] and there simply is no consensus this material is problematic like you think. The block was good. Bon courage (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"...that "he has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories about COVID-19 policies" which is well-sourced as well as trivially correct."

Great, quote the text which clearly states that as a matter of fact. NoMoreBu11 (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025 - Misuse of 'Minor Edit'

Hi NoMoreBu11! I noticed that you recently made an edit and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia: it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]