User talk:108.45.91.166

Hello, I'm WDGQSE3RSC. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to 2019 Jersey City shooting seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -WDGQSE3RSC (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at AfriForum. 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. we can't call him a Trotskyist without excellent sources or if he so self-identifies Doug Weller talk 10:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

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.

On his wiki page it said his two biggest influences were Marx and Trotsky, this is now gone and if that was a mistake that someone else posted, then I am sorry. However here is an article that describes him as such when he was younger and does not say that he has renounced this viewpoint. https://heatherdugmore.co.za/a-bold-new-future-prof-adam-habib/. As well given that he called John Bolton, the Five-Star Movement, and other groups Fascist when they are demonstrably not, in my view shows both his political bias and makes me question why he is even upheld here as a serious figure of authority.

Rod Dreher edits

I have attempted to establish a consensus version of the section on Raspail, incorporating the context desired by you while also retaining the factual, thoroughly sourced content that you are trying to delete.

I restored the inexplicably deleted sentence “Dreher has also referred to the "valuable" and "prophetic" lessons that can be drawn from the work, including Raspail's argument, which Dreher presents as potentially correct, that "the only way to defend Western civilization from these invaders [non-Western immigrants] is to be willing to shed their blood"”. This sentence goes a long way towards explaining why Dreher’s views on the book are controversial, and is clearly factual and backed up by the cited sources.

I changed “qualified statements for”, which is grammatically nonsensical as well as failing to explain the controversy, to “qualified praise for”, which is clearly justified by the direct quotations given in the previous paragraph, as well as by the cited sources.

Hopefully this paragraph now presents a balanced, thoroughly contextualized, thoroughly sourced account of the Dreher/Raspail controversy. If you persist in altering/deleting/reverting established, thoroughly sourced content, without first engaging in discussion and reaching consensus on the talk page, you will, as previously warned, be reported for edit warring. Robert12345678901 (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Your recent editing history at Rashida Tlaib 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.
As this is a WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about what is being inserted. Since the material is under dispute, it cannot be included until consensus is reached. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

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.

Hello, 108.45.91.166. I am glad to see you have stopped adding the material to the article; you have done it three times, and if you do it a fourth time you could be blocked per WP:3RR. Consider this a final warning on that score. You are now discussing at the talk page, which is the proper venue for a content dispute like this. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the response MenlanieN, lets have a reasonable discussion then.

I warned you earlier about 3RR. I should have also told you about the rule that if an edit you make is challenged, you should not restore it. A edit which has been challenged needs talk page consensus to be restored. That has nothing to do with you being an IP; it applies to everyone. And BTW would you PLEASE sign your posts on talk pages. You can do that by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post, or by clicking on the "signature" icon at the top of the edit page. The four tildes automatically generate a signature and a time/date stamp. Like this: -- MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry thought that it only applied to the same revert. My mistake.108.45.91.166 (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.

Doug Weller talk 14:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

---