User talk:Lewnwdc77

Hello Lewnwdc77, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Lewnwdc77, good luck, and have fun. – Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) ^talk 11:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lewnwdc77, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Lewnwdc77! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Station[edit]

You are welcome. I changed the references as blogs are discouraged. Windroff (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm Andrewgprout. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

Point 1. A country does not need to be totally independent to be a country, England and Scotland are Countries that are not totally independent.

Point 2. it is certain that Niue is self governing and in fact mostly independent - no-one anywhere considers it a territory of anywhere - please find a sensible ref that says such - and it would have to be a pretty big one. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning[edit]

Your recent editing history at Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States 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. Prcc27 (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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:Lewnwdc77 reported by User:Saucy (Result: ). Thank you. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 10:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. 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 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 discretionary sanctions alert[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in edits about, and articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2021 (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).

Lewnwdc77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Other editors are censoring my work to make the page about face masks in the United States more balanced per the Wikipedia POV policy. They have also deleted the factual section I added about the Federal Transportation Mask Mandate, the only federal mask requirement in place now, which was only briefly mentioned in the article. These editors should be blocked for reverting well-sourced modifications to the page, not me

Decline reason:

Being right does not make edit warring okay. The fact is everyone thinks they are right when they are in a content dispute. When you are being reverted by multiple users the correct thing to do is go to the talk page and seek consensus

Please use this time to review our edit warring policy and 3 revert rule. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:37, 2 August 2021 (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.

I will also point out that you were given a clear warning that edit warring can result in a block and decided to continue. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masks or No Masks[edit]

I agree with you that there is bias in terms of how pro-mask the Face masks in USA article is. That said, Wikipedia does have rules against edit wars, and it's generally a maximum of three edits or reverts that are permitted. I think that people will eventually see the truth about the mask. Where I live in Canada, for instance, masks failed stop the two largest spikes in "cases" (the second and the third), despite many leaders promising us otherwise. There are also five provinces, soon to be six, that have ended forced masking. Take care, and be careful in the future, as the pro-mask bias can really manifest itself on Wikipedia. --LABcrabs (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]