User talk:Chase2x00

Hi!

I reverted your edits on Jennifer L. Grant. While, of course, you're free to edit and add on Wiki pages, you deleted a paragraph in the process of editing, copy-pasted sources, and made some referencing errors. Please see WP:REF and WP:PLAGIARISM on this. Additionally, please use the edit summary to detail your edit and the talk page should you have any disagreement over how the page is set up or any suggestions on how to make it better before reverting other editors' edits.

Thanks. Welcome to Wikipedia! KingEdinburgh (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your post does not provide a Neutral point of view noticeboard, it raises questions and alerts about the neutrality of the biography. This is a biography of a living person, it raises questions and is a violation biographies of living persons policy, additionally listing personal information about the individual such as date of birth also violates WP policy. Chase2x00 (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit is not an exception to the three revert rule. Please undo it yourself, lest you be blocked for violating that bright-line rule. —C.Fred (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Ultimately leading to the suicide of one of her direct subordinates, who now lies in Arlington National Cemetery." this sentence is a lie, it is not listed in the article, it is inflamatory, does not provide a neutral point of view noticeboard, it raises questions and alerts about the neutrality of the biography. This is a biography of a living person, it raises questions and is a violation biographies of living persons policy. Chase2x00 (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been reverted. But you need to discuss. Do not re-add the material to the article again. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence needs to be deleted, it is a lie, it's not part of the article.

"Ultimately leading to the suicide of one of her direct subordinates, who now lies in Arlington National Cemetery."

Her full official department of defense bio should be included to balance her biography. This inflamatory article does not show good faith, it is disruptive and unbalanced. Chase2x00 (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why had you not mentioned any of this in an edit summary during your initial edits? And why not just remove the offending sentence instead of adding the CV? —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of making the changes, but someone else kept changing my edits. Chase2x00 (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts don't stop you from leaving edit summaries. —C.Fred (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to post her full official bio to balance the inflamatory article and remove the sentence that is a lie? thank you Chase2x00 (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Her full official bio should not be posted. The article may put undue weight on a single incident, but since I've been in administrator mode, I haven't looked at article content that way. —C.Fred (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence needs to be deleted, it is a lie, it's not part of the article, it is unbalanced, and inflamatory.

"Ultimately leading to the suicide of one of her direct subordinates, who now lies in Arlington National Cemetery." Chase2x00 (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What part of it is false? I see a source for an airman under her command dying of suicide. I gathered from the article there was direct interaction. The only part that may not be backed up is that the airman is buried in Arlington. —C.Fred (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The inflamatory part is the false statement of the wikipedia author that the airman suicide was a direct cause by this sentence "Ultimately leading to the suicide of one of her direct subordinates" this isn't in any report. The reason why the individual died by suicide is not known, making such a statement is false and there isn't report or article directly attributing the suicide to anyone or reason. Chase2x00 (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That bugged me anyway because that was a fragment. In fixing that, I've clarified that the Grant and the airman "clashed a lot" but removed the attribution of a reason for the death. —C.Fred (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But I do not see any obviously false statements. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is unbalanced if no part of her bio can actually be added. Chase2x00 (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This portion of the article is also not posted:

The Air Force did not provide a comment about why Grant was promoted in light of the investigation.

“I remain gratefully committed to serve, lead, and grow, and remain dedicated to our people and our mission. I am humbled to serve with the finest air and space professionals the world has ever known,” Chase2x00 (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I normally don't discuss article content with blocked users, but you raised legitimate BLP concerns. With those addressed, I will now be limiting the scope of any further discussions I participate in to your conduct. —C.Fred (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jennifer L. Grant. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jackfork (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Jennifer L. Grant, you may be blocked from editing. Jackfork (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chase2x00! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Jennifer L. Grant 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:Jennifer L. Grant, 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. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Jennifer L. Grant. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Chase2x00, I'm restoring your talk page access (which you briefly had revoked), but I want to make very clear why I'm doing it.

Yes, you did identify some valid BLP concerns in the article. But I recognized them and I engaged you in discussion about the matter. Ultimately, I made my own review of the sources and my own decision on how to edit the article, but there was a very limited window of scope where the BLP concern warranted talking with you about the article. Again, I initiated the discussion and steered it into the topic, so I'm taking ownership for leading the discussion there. If you'll forgive the military analogy, in this case, the brass is taking responsibility and sticking up for the airman. :)

Normally, blocked users may only use their user talk pages to talk about their own conduct and what they would do different if they were to get unblocked. Hence my comment above that I will not discuss the article any further while you are blocked.

I was impressed that you stayed focused on the matter at hand when discussing the article above, once we got engaged in discussion. I am hopeful that with some enhanced understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines and behavioural expectations, you can become a productive editor. —C.Fred (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]