User talk:Otto von Gallino
Regarding these edits: "antifa" has nothing to do with this, and reliably sourced material generally shouldn't be removed just because you disagree with the conclusions of the authors. Just because something has a Wikipedia entry doesn't mean we can cite it. The Occidental Quarterly is a WP:FRINGE outlet by any metric, and Wikipedia generally discourages over-reliance on WP:PRIMARY sources like this.
More importantly: looking at your edit history, I notice you've almost exclusively edited stuff related to Duchesne, and often in a way that seems patently non-neutral or based on poor or non-existent sourcing. I'm concerned that you might have a WP:Conflict of Interest that you haven't disclosed. If you are closely connected to the subject of this article, you should disclose it, and you should avoid making controversial edits related to this topic. Even if you do not have a direct conflict, you may be blocked if you continue to edit in a way that suggests you are here for the sole purpose of promoting this person. Nblund talk 20:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hello Nblund: I am just a reviewer of one of Duchesne's book, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization. I happen to be doing a Phd on multiculturalism and Western Civilization, and this is why I follow Duchesne's work. It is obvious that Nblund wants to take out as much of the academic-related content of this page as possible, and replace it with content from hit pieces, or a fluffy journalist article from Huff Post. Duchesne has been defended in mainstream magazines, or fairly portrayed, as in recent article in Globe and Mail. The editor of Occidental Quarterly has a very high profile in Research Gate with over 2600 citations, which is rare in academia. The Uniqueness of Western civilization was reviewed extensively in peer reviewed articles, praise very highly, and his book Canada in Decay is a best seller.
- And is this the only book you've read in the last 4 years of your PhD program? The Occidental Quarterly primarily publishes the works of it's own crackpot editorial board. The fringe material needs to go, and there's no way to avoid a more prominent discussion of the controversy. It's the only reason that Duchesne is notable enough to have a page. Feel free to ask at WP:RSN if you don't want to take my word for it, but it's clearly fringe. I went ahead and posted additional explanation for my edits on the talk page, you should take the discussion there. Nblund talk 21:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, this is a (mostly friendly!) warning/explanation: you've been repeatedly reverted on this material, you haven't addressed any of my comments on the article talk page, and your edit summary is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia policy. If you want to have input on the article, try to build a WP:CONSENSUS for your edits. If you just WP:EDIT WAR without engaging the conversation, you're likely to end up blocked. Nblund talk 00:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Alert
[edit]
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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
May 2019
[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ricardo Duchesne. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Look, if you're going to make a bunch of inept edits, make sure that you don't copy that ineptitude from one account to another. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.