User talk:DavidJac123

June 2014

You are well aware that the content you are trying to add is controversial. Please take it to the talk page, and try to obtain consensus for it before adding it again. As of now, you are edit-warring against several other editors, and are likely to get yourself blocked. You may also want to read our policy on sock-puppetry. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did talk on the talk page.. No one responded.. The graph is from the book and it is not controviersial, and is relevant to the book. So discuss it with me before deleting it again.. thank youDavidJac123 (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Vanamonde93 (and other editors) on this issue. Please let's discuss your strongest rationale for editing the article text as you desire on the article talk page, without name-calling of other Wikipedians. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

name calling? I havent called anyone names. furthermore, I am not the one trying to edit ANYTHING, you are the one deleting half of the article all the time, without actually debating it. Stop doing it. I have readded everything again. Lets have a debate before we delete the whole article plz.DavidJac123 (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning of edit warring against consensus

Your recent editing history at Race Differences in Intelligence (book) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD 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. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you have clearly now broken the WP:3RR rule and should quickly revert yourself until you have shown a valid consensus exists on the talk page for inclusion. Violation of 3RR is subject to immediate action on normal articles, and this article is part of the race and intelligence discretionary sanctions where administrators are given even more authority take actions to prevent disruptions from editors who are not following consensus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No i am not violating any rule. YOU ARE THE ONE TRYING TO DELETE A WIKIPEDIA PAGE! I am just preventing you from doing it. You are the one who keeps deleting a page based on your personal opion. Can't see why it is wrong prevent you from doing it.DavidJac123 (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

before declaring adamantly that you are not breaking any rules, you would probably be wise to actually read the rules that have been linked for you. see WP:3RR and WP:CON. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:DavidJac123 reported by User:Vanamonde93 (Result: ). Thank you. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Race Differences in Intelligence (book). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/101.0.94.173, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. May i considered that a medallion, for going up against the political correct anti-racist establishment? =)DavidJac123 (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]