User talk:Zeerust Boy
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Zeerust Boy! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Lefcentreright Talk | Contribs | Global 12:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
October 2020
[edit]
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to AfriForum. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 15:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Your changes in the lead
[edit]They are getting reverted because you don't know what a lead should be - see WP:LEAD, you are changing it in a way that violates our neutral point of view policy, and are using language that we call "weasel words', see WP:Words to avoid. You really do need to comply with our policy and guidelines. You should be using the article talk page to get WP:CONSENSUS on your edits. Your comment on censorship looks as though it might be a personal attack and you need to avoid those. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I said censorships, because i can't edit and add sources. You should descript first Afriforum and the controversies are next. Statements from Kriel should not be there. This article is not neutral and seems having an american point of vue (AfriForum is not KKK). There were no personnal attack in my edits and sorry for those who think it was. But there is a personnal attack on me when ther is a total cancellation of my edits, despite new references. Cordialy Zeerust Boy (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Reverting you is not a personal attack. There is no reason why such a new editor should know how to make a good article, and every reason why new editors should be willing to use the talk page and get agreement when 3 experienced editors are reverting you. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I said censorships, because i can't edit and add sources. You should descript first Afriforum and the controversies are next. Statements from Kriel should not be there. This article is not neutral and seems having an american point of vue (AfriForum is not KKK). There were no personnal attack in my edits and sorry for those who think it was. But there is a personnal attack on me when ther is a total cancellation of my edits, despite new references. Cordialy Zeerust Boy (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
October 2020
[edit]
Your recent editing history at AfrForum 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.
3 editors have reverted you, you are clearly editwarring. Note that you are not entitled to 3 reverts in 24 hours and if you continue to slow edit war you can be blocked. Doug Weller talk 15:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Please don't place a "neutrality disputed" tag on an article without starting a discussion on the talkpage of the issues you see, and trying to get consensus for your version. You have not edited Talk:AfriForum. Unless you do so reasonably soon — say within a few hours — the tag will be removed. Those tags are not supposed to just sit there as badges of shame. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 17:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC).
- I started the discussion on the talk page. I can't write faster (and I can't edit also on the article). Zeerust Boy (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Good. Thank you. It would be less stressful to start a discussion first and add the tag after, IMO. Then you could write a more detailed comment on talk (which I think would be helpful) without having to try to write fast. Just a tip for next time. Bishonen | tålk 18:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC).