User talk:24.161.120.233

November 2021

Hello, I'm LuK3. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Erwin Chemerinsky, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Erwin Chemerinsky. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Erwin Chemerinsky 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. Firefangledfeathers 20:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

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:24.161.120.233 reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: ). Thank you. Firefangledfeathers 21:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Hello, I'm Patient Zero. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Erwin Chemerinsky—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Patient Zero^talk 23:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 24.161.120.233! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Erwin Chemerinsky 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:Erwin Chemerinsky, 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. If you are certain that "controversial" is an improvement in the lead, please explain why at the talk page. I have started a talk page section for you to convince others. Please wait until there is consensus before restoring the descriptor. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

September 2022

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Erwin Chemerinsky. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 12:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How the heck is this "unreferenced" when it is supported by the specific citations? This sounds like Soviet censorship? If you have an issue be specific. I cited to a letter by the union of state prosecutors. How is this not referenced? Again stop being the Soviet government. 24.161.120.233 (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(1) He is a law professor. He wrote an article about a particular criminal law. The prosecutors (whose job is to enforce that law) believe the article contained false information and they wrote a letter to that effect. How is this not factual. My edit does not say that he provided false information in his article. It says the union of prosecutors believes that he did. That is reporting on a fact which is not defamatory.

(2) He is a law professor. He published a LONG essay in a law journal to criticize a FEDERAL JUDGE for saying X. Reputable people then came forward to say that the judge never said X. How is this not fair game????? 24.161.120.233 (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How the heck is this "unreferenced" when it is supported by the specific citations? This sounds like Soviet censorship? If you have an issue be specific. I cited to a letter by the union of state prosecutors. How is this not referenced? Again stop being the Soviet government. 24.161.120.233 (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources consist of 1. A non-neutral account by an involved party, 2. A pair of op-eds with no independent coverage, just unfounded accusation and unfounded response, happens all the time. 3. A pair of National Review articles (see WP:RSP). 4. A primary source/database 5. WSJ, paywalled, but doesn't seem to discuss EC specifically. You've mixed all this in with plenty of editorialising and WP:OR then expect everyone to leave it in place, in violation of WP:BLP, or else you call us Soviets. That is not how it works. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 12:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To make i clearer, the national review ones are opinion pieces, which are not suitable for BLP articles, see WP:RSOPINION and WP:BLPRS. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 13:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if you keep censoring I am invoke formal resolution mechanism. Your explanations make no sense. EC created a public controversy by writing an essay on his own. No one forced him to write on a public issue. Other people with an interest in the debate that he started (union of prosecutors) responded. How is this not legitimate? You are either a Soviet or you work for EC. 24.161.120.233 (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What public controversy? If one existed wouldn't there be something besides op-eds and opinion pieces from pressure groups? The sourcing isn't good enough to use for a BLP article. The way you are then putting it all together is in violation of Wp:No original research

Also, which formal resolution mechanism exactly? WP:BLPRESTORE would suggest that you don't have a leg to stand on, no matter what you use.

I am not a Soviet, the Soviet Union collapsed decades ago, so unless I am writing this years before now, which is not possible (barring unforseen glitches in the spacetime fabric) so I cannot possibly be a Soviet.

I do not work for EC, I don't think that I would be allowed to anyway since I am from Australia, not the United States, and it would be difficult to reconcile the time difference. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 13:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Erwin Chemerinsky. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 12:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.