User talk:Mkstokes

A belated welcome!

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Mkstokes! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The Teahouse

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what to do in regards to edits for the Peter Schiff article. I'm trying to make honest edits that succinctly reflect both of the investigations as well as the defamation case. I'm tempted to create an entire new article just to cover the defamation case as that seems to be the point of contention. Please advise. Mkstokes (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Peter Schiff. Thank you. --Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

January 2024

Hi Mkstokes! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Peter Schiff 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:Peter Schiff, 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. You have now reverted three times with [1], [2] and [3] series of edits. If you revert one more time you will be in violation of WP:3RR.. TarnishedPath^talk 05:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Not a problem. Rather than doing a full revert, I'll just edit the specific language that I disagree with in piecemeal fashion. Thank you for the warning. It was much appreciated. @TarnishedPath has already agreed in the dispute resolution that Nick McKenzie defamed Peter Schiff. I'll start there. Mkstokes (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

A partial revert counts as a revert. Do another revert within the 24 hour period and see what happens. TarnishedPath^talk 11:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mkstokes, I have a better suggestion. You suggest some wording in full in the talk page (with sources) and if I agree I'll implement it and that way you won't be in violation of WP:3RR. Trust me, you don't want to be in violation of 3RR. TarnishedPath^talk 11:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Ps, don't try and put words in my mouth or try and WP:GASLIGHT me or you find out fast how well that works out for you. TarnishedPath^talk 11:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath, you literally said "It's simple. Both The Age and Nick McKenzie defamed Peter Schiff" on the dispute page. Those are your words, not mine. I agree with you. Thus we have consensus. So are you going to add Nick McKensie's name to the list of people Mr. Schiff brought the defamation case against or are you leaving it up to me to do it? @Viriditas, please note that I am now being threaten and accused of something I didn't do. Mkstokes (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I quoted you. Please don't WP:GASLIGHT. Now I've added comments to the talk page of the article I suggest you move further discussion there. How about you just suggest some wording that's similar to the current edit that you like without using lawyerly? Can you do that? Then I'll have a look and go from there? Respond in the article talk. TarnishedPath^talk 12:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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 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.

TarnishedPath^talk 13:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)