User talk:2600:100D:B108:D87B:F0F7:E968:C918:CD16

March 2018
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Your edit-summaries are highly inappropriate. DMacks (talk) 04:55, 12 March 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 add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Aquagenic urticaria. DMacks (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I’m very confused now. The information in the article had no source before, but how come however added it in the first place wasn’t warned but I am? It apparently wasn’t a problem before, but now it is? Am I being targeted for being an IP editor? You might notice that I’ve actually been reverting unconstructive edits - not all IP editors are vandals. I will try to moderate my tone. I’m very passionate about keeping Wikipedia pure and clean from vandalism and bias.
 * It doesn't matter how long it's been there. Lots of problematic content might exist for a long time before someone notices. We may never know why it was added (good-faith but incorrect, based on a correct idea but mis-written/mis-explained badly enough that it is incorrect as written, an annoying test of our ability to catch bad edits, or simple vandalism). But when someone objects, it needs to be resolved (WP:BURDEN is part of the policy that helps keep wikipedia clean). This instance is not just that it's uncited--the concept of "that seems like it could be true but we still need to verify it"--which would mean it needs a cn tag--but instead two editors directly dispute it, so it's better to remove it until someone can actually demonstrate it is correct. You're being targetted because several aspects of your behavior towards others and in article-content are against our policies and guidelines. I'm glad to see you are learning about them and working to improve the encyclopedia within their limits. DMacks (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * As a nice example, I don't have time to look closely at the content at Affirmative action, but User:Trumpisabigot is clearly an unacceptable username and I blocked that account solely on that basis. DMacks (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for using inflammatory, derogatory, or racist language. Using inflammatory, derogatory, or racist language outside of a purely encyclopedic context is considered vandalism. Please review this policy before posting again. If you use inflammatory, derogatory, or racist language on Wikipedia in violation of this policy again, as you did to Affirmative Action, you will be blocked from editing without further notice. Derogatory language is not acceptable in edit summaries, see WP:SUMMARYNO  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanpet113 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't this a moot point? The editor changed behavior after an earlier warning and then ceased editing long before you posted this. DMacks (talk) 05:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)