User talk:24.69.169.21

Your recent editing history at Cadet Instructors Cadre 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; read about 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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly restoring unsourced content

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between editing and deleting bonifide material regardless of lack of reference. If the editor feels that strongly. Do the work and add to the page rather than denying users the information provide. There is room for reasonable acceptance of good faith material. I have requested edit protection of the original article. 24.69.169.21 (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know you requested protection; I denied it. Our WP:Protection policy doesn't include protecting material completely lacking sources. All material in Wikipedia must be sourced per our verifiability policy. You'll need to find reliable sources for any material that you add to the article. If you resume adding unsourced material after this block expires, the next block will be for a longer duration. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are therefore denying access to information that is not only correct but useful. It is very highly doubtful that ALL material in Wikipedia is sourced regardless of the aspirational policy. In the extreme, such pedantic action could result in a class action regarding these policies and their enforcers. The motive for the edits may be relevant. Does the deleter or the restorer have a bias (for or against) the topic? Are there verifiable falsehoods int he material? Or is it just what it is? 24.69.169.21 (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the founder of Wikipedia

"In the case of truthful, non-defamatory information obtained legally, I think there is no possibility of any defensible "right" to censor what other people are saying. It is important to avoid language like "data" because we aren't talking about "data"—we are talking about the suppression of knowledge. You do not have a right to use the law to prevent Wikipedia editors from writing truthful information, nor do you have a right to use the law to prevent publishing truthful information." Wales concluded with an indication of his ideal outcome: "A part of the outcome should be the very strong implementation of a right to free speech —essentially the language of the First Amendment in the U.S." 24.69.169.21 (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here 24.69.169.21 (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"Your reason here" is not a reason to unblock you. 331dot (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2023 (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.

As above 24.69.169.21 (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Above you say "In the extreme, such pedantic action could result in a class action regarding these policies and their enforcers." - be aware that we don't tolerate legal threats. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No threat ... just paraphrasing Mr. Wales. 24.69.169.21 (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redaction

As a former Canadian Forces Public Affairs Officer it is unfortunate that this article has been so severely redacted. It was a great resource to explain the work of this unique CF Branch. It would be very helpful to have it restored 2604:3D08:1580:2D0:6C93:2150:14D6:448A (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not going to happen unless all material includeds citations from third-party reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]