User talk:142.254.114.23

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Democracy Now! 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.

See WP:BURDEN. The burden is on you, the person who wants to add material that is being removed by multiple editors, to support your position on the talk page. The burden is not on those removing your addition, it is on you. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

ATTN: ANACHRONIST I'm not sure how to solve this problem on the editing of the Democracy Now! article. Seeking to reach consensus with the editor or editors who are continuously removing the pretty tame 'Criticism' section of the article are not flagging their reasons for the removal (making edits to respond to their concerns impossible) and seem to simply be biased supporters of Democracy Now! seeking to silence any criticism at all of the program. These biased editors are not likely to come to 'consensus' or compromise, so there is an impasse. I originally wrote the 'Criticism' section years ago because I was aware that legitimate criticisms of Democracy Now! exist and are widespread enough to warrant being mentioned (just as countless other Wikipedia entries mention such criticisms of other subjects or public figures). Over the years various automatic flags and requests for changes of the section have come forward and I have meticulously re-edited the section to address those concerns. The current text remained intact for several months with no automatic flags or requests for changes. *Please Advise*. Thanks.

I have protected the article due to a content dispute. The talk page is now the only recourse left to resolve the dispute.

It's hard to tell from the contribution history, but it seems that the objection to the section has to do with the sources cited. I observe that while Veterans for Peace is a notable organization, an open letter written personally by one member (not even identified as an officer of his local chapter) doesn't mean that person speaks for the whole organization. I have no comment on Black Agenda Report other than to note the irony of a biased publication accusing another entity of bias. At least that's how it struck me.

Finally, "bias" doesn't mean "unreliable". Plenty of biased sources do good journalism. With that in mind, I recommend that Black Agenda Report be brought up at WP:RSN to get an assessment of its reliability for citing on Wikipedia. That might help settle the dispute. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

About anonymity

I saw you wrote earlier on Talk:Democracy Now! "On the subject of my creating an account, there is no need as I am the only user at this IP address, so I prefer to remain anonymous."

Actually, you are more anonymous with an account. As an IP address, it's trivial for anyone to geolocate you. If your IP address appears on other places you visit, your activities can be traced. On the other hand, with an account named however you like (not using your real name), only administrators with the "checkuser" right (and there aren't many of them) can know your IP address.

The other advantage to having an account, if you're going to be more active here, is that you have a constant location where people can communicate with you. With an IP address, unless you have a contract for a static IP address with your provider, your provider can reassign another IP address to you at any time.

The disadvantage to an account, of course, is that you have to log into it. But Wikipedia lets you keep a login session open for a whole year at a time, 365 days. As long as you access it from the same browser, you need re-log in only once per year, but then you need to remember your password. To do this, you can tie your account to an email address to help you reset your password if you lose it. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

---