User talk:184.153.38.168

Edit-warring on Dave Rubin
Your recent editing history 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Dave Rubin; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Grayfell (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * 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.

July 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Progressivism, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Economy of South Korea. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at People's Action Party, you may be blocked from editing. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 21:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Democratic Party (Hong Kong). From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 21:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2019 (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.


 * As the blocking administrator I am opposed to unblocking this user. They have a record of persistently disruptive POV and and unsourced editing. Their unblock request makes it clear that they either do not understand or care about how we build articles and our guidelines including WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. I would caution the user that if this pattern of behavior resumes after the current block expires that they are likely to be swiftly reblocked for a much longer duration. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Bavarian Soviet Republic
In my recent efforts at clarity etc ("→‎Aftermath: clarification / focus - sentence-splitting, reordering and rephrasing"), I was uneasily aware tht there just weren’t any references cited. I couldn’t do much about that, and I aimed only at retaining the existing meaning while improving clarity and style. Your work since then does change the meaning - making it less emphatic. And your new opening phrase, According to conservative historians, does rather highlight the need for sources.

Can you provide any?

What I’m afraid of is we’re diluting and losing the original firm voice, when the actual need was for references and not for muting.

PS - I’m seeing now tht another contributor has taken us back to the original (as clarified by me) - though still of course without mentioning any sources.

- SquisherDa (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The overriding tenor of those parts of the article had an overtly reactionary character. Evidently, the experience of the Bavarian Soviet Republic didn't "inculcate hatred" of leftist politics in the totality of the Bavarian general population. Far from it, many in Bavaria to this day have a warm opinion of the Republic. The other emendations pertained to grammar, punctuation, concision, and specificity.


 * What you say is really interesting! To me, the original text was a poignant and agonised account of how somewhat self-appointed Russian leadership / ownership of the left produced a split, a socialist ~ communist antagonism, tht let the Nazis in (and so produced a national and then global tragedy).  I didn’t at all see it as reactionary in intent; very interesting tht to you it was reactionary (in its effect, at least; maybe intent too?)  If I understand you correctly, we both regret both the failure and its consequences; I saw the text as bewailing it all, you saw it as celebrating it!  And (my sympathies being what they are!) I felt rather keenly the lack of supporting references.


 * Altogether, what emerges from all this seems to be tht (1) it all needs expanding a bit, to disambiguate its stance (bewailing? or celebrating!?); and (2) needs references to support it. (Of course, the stance, once clarified, needs actually to be clearly neutral!)


 * Your experience of sentiment in Bavaria is illuminating but not directly usable, of course, as WP:OR . . do you know of any sources we can use?


 * -SquisherDa (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, far from introducing bias, I think I've removed the bias. It seems quite even-handed and "neutral" as it is right now.


 * Mmm . . seems to me still tht what’s needed is references. And actually, on a second look, I’m seeing tht a couple of sources are cited - at the ends of the paragraphs’ final sentences, leaving the reader to surmise which of the preceding sentences are directly supported by the source and which are more 'freestyle'.


 * In light of your experience 'on the ground' in Bavaria, I wonder if the events of the following hundred years have produced a mellowing and some change of heart. It still seems to me likely tht through the 1920s the effect was, as the original portrayed, a reactionary revulsion.


 * Do you have access to the sources cited? (or to any others?!) Are you able to cite references on a sentence-by-sentence (or phrase-by-phrase!) basis?


 * Meanwhile, I’m thinking tht one of your amendments really doesn’t hit on the right phrasing. "The parties struggled to work together" is in a sense the reverse of the truth.  Surely the socialists struggled with all their power - fought passionately in fact - not to work together?  As I understand it, even in the face of the most clear and present danger after Hitler was appointed Chancellor, they failed to vote together in the Reichstag to shut him down.


 * -SquisherDa (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my emendations were consistent with the sources. Many of the adjustments, too, were just stylistic, grammatical, and structural.