User talk:81.159.197.137
July 2018[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at The Independent, you may be blocked from editing. As you have been told repeatedly, if you have concerns, bring it up on the talk page. Not in the edit comments. KNHaw (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The Independent. KNHaw (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at The Independent. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. KNHaw (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Your recent editing history at The Independent shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 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.
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.
bring it up on the articles talk page 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 21:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]
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:81.159.197.137 reported by User:Money emoji (Result: ). Thank you. 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 21:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
July 2018[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)- If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
The Independent Edits and your block[edit]
(The following is copied from your edits to my talk page)
"Okay I have added referencing to my claims. This isn't just me as I've just noticed another man today make an argument based on the principles of Modern Liberalism. I am not vandalising. I have made other notable contributions such as on the "shadow-banning" page where I not only updated the page to include the comments made by Donald Trump, but also reversed an edit made by a crafty user who thought it was funny to add "illegally elected" in front of "President". Look at the history if you want.
The referencing I have included is both a fact checking/bias checking website and a reference from a graduate in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from the University of Oxford. The fact that it's "from Quora" doesn't in any way affect the judgement of the graduate in question on the matter and bears no relevance.
Of course, when referring to updating the political slant of something like a newspaper, there is no "hard evidence" per se such as scientific data, but one rather has to make a judgement based on the actions and political stances within the publication itself. Even further down the page itself it begins to make reference to the newspaper's changing political stance. I am currently a Politics student myself and I find it reprehensible that one wouldn't respect the views of another graduate in the subject from a world class university based on where he chooses to make such a judgement regarding the paper.
Is there anything more I need to say? Do I need to endlessly trawl the internet and every single place that makes reference to the changing political stance of this paper to the point where there will be a (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) reference number list next to the words "left leaning"? What will it take to get this page updated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.197.137 (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "
First, I want to thank you for reaching out to me on my talk page. I'm responding to you here instead of there as a courtesy because I believe your block will not allow you to edit my talk page any more. Normally I wouldn't bother, but I think there's a chance you might be willing to procced with wp:good faith, so I am willing to give it a try.
Now, your comments above, frankly, would have been *perfect* for the article talk page. Your resistance to putting them there is confusing, but we'll pass on that. As I understand it the core concerns with your edits were not on the content of them but on sourcing - your concerns with them could have been addressed there. Had you brought these up on the talk page perhaps these could have been resolved and your edits could have stood. If you really believe your edits add value to the article, I encourage you to make Talk:The Independent your first stop when your current ban expires. I believe you will find people willing to not only consider your changes but perhaps even help you find sources to back them up.
However, before that I think you need to do more research on multiple fronts. The fact that you continued to confuse me with @Money emoji: on multiple occasions (including your comments on my talk page) indicates to me (and this is just my opinion) need to get your facts straight. Please take a peek at | the article revision history and you will see that the reverts were not done exclusively by either of us.
Finally (I don't like lecturing people but this needs to be said), your comments towards myself and @Money emoji: were not cool. Attacking me by calling me a troll ("Wikipedia need to get their act together and stop letting people troll and abuse the site like this person who undid the edit has done") and saying I should "retire" (again, because you confused me with a comment on @Money emoji:'s page) is unacceptable. Continue acting this way and you're going to see this cycle repeated again and again, albeit without me giving you the benefit of the doubt.
I'm glad you have opinions that are important to you. I'm glad you want to share them. But you need to figure out a better way to do it if you want to do it on Wikipedia.
So... I've assumed good faith on your part. Are you willing to do the same with the rest of us?
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |