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)

@TarnishedPath, this may be helpful to you. The Daily Telegraph is not and never has been "tabloid journalism." Rather, per [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 392#RfC: The Telegraph|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 392#RfC: The Telegraph], there is consensus that The Daily Telegraph (also known as The Telegraph) is generally reliable. Efforts to remove content or citations to the contrary directly goes against Wikipedia guidelines. If you have any questions, please let me know. Mkstokes (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mkstokes, you'll find that RfC was concerning the British Daily Telegraph. TarnishedPath^talk 23:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath thank you for the clarification. I stand corrected. I was wrong in my assertion that The Daily Telegraph is not and never has be "tabloid journalism." My apologies. Mkstokes (talk) 21:48, 9 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)

Peter Schiff

Please cease putting words in editors mouths and WP:GASLIGHTING like you have been in discussions at Talk:Peter Schiff/Archive 2#Investigation section has a biased tone. Talk:Peter Schiff#RfC: Peter Schiff - Operation Atlantis investigation and subsequent lawsuit against Australian media and User talk:Mkstokes#January 2024. Continued behaviour in this regards may be brought up at WP:AN/I. TarnishedPath^talk 04:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSION casting and other inappropriate behaviour

You should cease casting baseless WP:ASPERSIONs like you did in Special:Diff/1194753711 and Special:Diff/1194797693. You should also cease leaving demeaning and condescending messages on other editors user talk pages like you did in Special:Diff/1194814180. Continued inappropriate behaviour from you may result in sanctions being sought against you on noticeboards. TarnishedPath^talk 03:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit Warring at Nick McKenzie

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nick McKenzie. 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. TarnishedPath^talk 11:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath you have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't made a single revert on Peter Schiff since January 3, 2024 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Schiff&oldid=1193317289). Now please withdraw your patently incorrect statement. Mkstokes (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Corrected for Nick McKenzie. Please don't be obtuse. It doesn't suit you by half. TarnishedPath^talk 12:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction and tacit admission that you got it wrong. I know that couldn't have been easy and it is a positive first step in restoring your credibility. Mkstokes (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING and Personal Attacks

Please cease WP:CANVASSING like you did at Special:Diff/1194947781 and Special:Diff/1194948602. Additionally you need to cease any further personal attacks like you did at Special:Diff/1194975996. Further behaviour may result in reports to noticeboards. TarnishedPath^talk 23:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

McKenzie talk page

Please stop. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at Nick McKenzie, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Please consider the many messages from users on the article talk page concerning this.
SPECIFICO talk 18:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Case request declined

Regarding your case request.. In response to your request for arbitration, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard also exists as a method of resolving content disputes that aren't easily resolved with talk page discussion.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of the community if you have more questions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this was helpful @MJL. Thank you! Mkstokes (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Mkstokes. Thank you. TarnishedPath^talk 14:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)