Fort Towson

• Don't use edit summaries which misrepresent what your edits are doing, such as "Fixed typos" for an edit which adds substantial material and significantly changes the meaning of the text of an article.
• Don't add content to an article which is not supported by citations to reliable sources. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, we can't accept statements on the basis of no more evidence than the fact that someone who has chosen to create a Wikipedia account says so.
• Don't edit for the purpose of promoting or publicising a point of view or opinion. JBW (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  SCOTUS citation is citation. YHWHTruthKeeper (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a typo fix. Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You already stated that, however there was a no factual descriptive (opinion) word that clearly was a typo, that I removed at the same time. How many different corrections can I list at any one time in that box? You’re starting to talk in circles and split hairs. I did correct a typo and I did cite the court case. YHWHTruthKeeper (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a typo fix [1], and your personal interpretation of a court decision doesn't make it a citeable source. See WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources that provide a reputable academic or journalistic analysis of such events, not a bare citation of a court proceeding that offers no context to what appears to be a tangential analysis concerning militias in general. Acroterion (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal interpretation? It was a direct quote with citation from SCOTUS. That not a personal interpretation at all. However, you apparent personal interpretation is a direct violation of the policies you are citing. You are violating the policies with your personal opinions. YHWHTruthKeeper (talk)

You appear to be trying to use the article as a soapbox or coatrack for personal views on militias, rather than as a discussion of the subject of the article, using court opinions as a basis for synthesis. Please read WP:SYNTH and WP:COAT. If you have a substantial argument to make that the court opinion is relevant to this specific topic, make it on the article's talkpage, as is expected, so that consensus may be found, rather than through edit summaries. Again, read WP:SYNTH. Acroterion (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only one with a soapbox is you. You are biased, accusatory and picking and choosing which citations fit your agenda or don’t. Your fear is of the truth b ing spoken. That makes this site a propaganda and entertainment site, rather than a fact site. Your incredibility and narcissism are being reflected in your comments and this bogus description of Michigan militia. These are clear/malicious lies and defamation, and this is only my first topic. You have done nothing here but pass judgement on facts and citations in order to project your agenda. That is not what an encyclopedia platform is for. Encyclopedias offer facts devoid any feelings or political slighting. YHWHTruthKeeper (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are the “malicious lies” of which you speak? As far as I know, we were discussing whether an apparently tangential reference to a court opinion was germane to the article in the context of Wikipedia’s sourcing policies. Is there something I’ve missed? Again, the article talkpage is thataway, without personal attacks or assumptions of bad faith. Acroterion (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many different corrections can I list at any one time in that box? Quite a few, actually, but the point is to at minimum note the major ones. This was not a typo fix. It was a change in content. Valereee (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

Acroterion (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So why are you so adamant to attack SCOTUS citation and block neutrality rather than defend accusations and inflammatory language that is ultimately false? YHWHTruthKeeper (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YHWHT, when you're working at contentious topics, it's best to discuss the changes you're proposing at the article's talk page first. You need to be ready to argue persuasively and civilly and to assume other editors are well-intentioned. You aren't doing any of these things, which is making you look like you're here with an agenda rather than a sincere interest in improving the encyclopedia. Dial the hostility and rhetoric down a few notches, and go in with the assumption that if you've got a good argument, others will listen. Valereee (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not, ever tell me what to do, again. There is no hostility or rhetoric. There was a removal of opinion, who I figured had to be a typo as blatantly false as it is and backed up the fact that it is “rhetoric” with a SCOTUS precedent that I cited. I followed all the rules. There is no rule to discuss editing lies. I will find the rules pertaining to dictators and hierarchies. I will not tolerate rhetoric or hostility nor will I allow a bunch of narcissistic people to blame me for their actions simply because they can’t handle the truths on any subject, contentious or not. You “editors” need to dial a lot back. I cited SCOTUS case and have been accused of not citing. I quoted the case and have been accused of offering my own opinion of the opinion. The hostility and rhetoric is not mine at all, but I can get there if continued to be pushed. It is time for truth, not propaganda. YHWHTruthKeeper (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]