User talk:2075versant

Opening section
I disagree with your attempt to silence factual reporting that does not agree with your political worldview. Please state what specifically in my edit you believe to be incorrect and your basis therefor. 2075versant (talk) 01:32, February 17, 2022 (UTC)


 * I see you registered an hour ago, so perhaps you are not familiar with our policies. The source you seek to use, The Daily Wire, is not considered a reliable source at WP:RSP, so it cannot be used here. Please take your argument to the article's Talk page if you'd like clarification, but so far your approach is not likely to go far. soibangla (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I see on the talk page for this article that you are a serial abuser of RSP. "Soibangla, I think you need to review RSP. Twice you have removed sources claiming they aren't reliable[3],[4]. If you are going to revert Boul22435's edits I think you need to actually explain why you think those sources aren't reliable for the claims in question. RSP does not say those sources (Fox New, Washington Examiner) are not reliable. It only says use with caution. Since we have a number of sources, including the The Hill saying the same thing this is something that can be included as an attributed statement. You have raised a concern, it has been addressed. Springee (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)"


 * The simple truth is the facts are not as you would like them to be, so you want to resort to censorship wrapped in sophistry. 2075versant (talk) 01:58, February 17, 2022‎ (UTC)

Edit warring at Rodney Joffe
Your recent editing history at Rodney Joffe 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Valjean (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * That article is not about Sussmann, and the WSJ is a conservative newspaper which routinely distorts political news. In that regard it is sometimes as bad as Fox News, which we do not consider a reliable source for science and politics. -- Valjean (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)