User talk:75.166.140.195

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Cathy McMorris Rodgers, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

• • Drmies I reverted a change that removed a large set of sourced content. The editor claimed to have problems with the sources but I suspect the main problem was that the content didn't fit the editor's political agenda. Irrespective of the reason why, these changes were made without adequate discussion on the talk page and it was appropriate to revert them.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ruby K. Payne, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. jp×g 12:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

jp the edit was constructive. I'm sure you are familiar with Wikipedia:Criticism#"Criticism"_section. Furthermore, the article doesn't elaborate on the content of Payne's books so the criticism of the content is basically just axe grinding and not relevant. I've reverted your revert. Continue this discussion on the talk page of the article if you wish to discuss it further.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.

 A S U K I T E   18:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history at Ruby K. Payne 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. Ashleyyoursmile! 18:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hi 75.166.140.195! 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:

Learn more about editing

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:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Ruby K. Payne, you may be blocked from editing. Serols (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vandalism when you remove POV pushing liberal bs from a page. Fu-Q very much Serols.

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:75.166.140.195 reported by User:Asukite (Result: ). Thank you.  A S U K I T E   18:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only crime I'm guilty of is speaking truth to liberal douchebags bent on pushing their pseudoscientific narratives. Fu-Q very much User_talk:Asukite and your stupidly formatted username.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Ruby K. Payne. Serols (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only crime I'm guilty of is speaking truth to liberal douchebags bent on pushing their pseudoscientific narratives. Fu-Q very much Serols 75.166.140.195 (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 75.166.140.195. You've been warned for edit warring per a complaint at the noticeboard. You may be blocked if you revert the article again without first getting a consensus in your favor on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It will be impossible to get consensus for any sort of wrongthink EdJohnston because of the stupid amount of left wing bias on Wikipedia. 75.166.140.195 (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may have grown as a person, but the FORUM-style complaints about liberal bias and this and that on Wikipedia is still very much there, as is your treating article talk pages as if they were Facebook posts. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]