User talk:24.217.168.45

December 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at ACT! for America, you may be blocked from editing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:15, 9 December 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.

Happy to explain why you're wrong. First, the source you cite includes the word "discredited" literally nowhere — that you believe the SPLC's apology in one case to render them "discredited" in all cases would be nothing more than your own personal opinion and interpretation of that event, and your personal opinions have zero place in Wikipedia. Secondly, the fact that the SPLC has checked its own work, found errors and publicly corrected them with an apology to those wronged... literally is part of what makes the SPLC a reliable source on Wikipedia. Please read WP:NEWSORG, which states in pertinent part: Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest. You see, errors of fact and judgment happen. Good and reputable sources review their work, accept outside criticism and, when warranted, correct and retract those errors — as the SPLC did here. Your personal opinion of the SPLC has no bearing on Wikipedia, and continuing to insert it is disruptive and tendentious. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Act! for America 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 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 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. Doug Weller talk 18:47, 9 December 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.