User talk:2601:2C7:8580:4920:50EA:87EB:6B19:628F

May 2024
Your recent editing history at Ze'ev Jabotinsky 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; read about 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. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Knock it off, 2601:2C7:8580:4920:50EA:87EB:6B19:628F. Doug Weller clearly didn't engage in an edit war and you also clearly didn't file a report against him. It's disruptive of you to falsely claim otherwise. --Yamla (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Last warning. Knock it off. --Yamla (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I believed I should warn him before the report is filed. It is now filed.
 * I believe it is clear user Doug Weller engaged in edit warring. He made no effort to respond to my talks, and is showing no reason for disputing highly trusted sources of information. Despite this he and other users seem to think it's okay to remove my edits.
 * I made an effort to add extra citations everytime to quell suspicions, and to provide sources even more widely undisputable. I did this maybe once or twice before opening a talk, so sorry if that was wrong, but I'm not just trying to mindlessly spam a change. I'm actively trying to bring more information with every edit, I've went as far as to find a PDF of a release CIA document. 2601:2C7:8580:4920:50EA:87EB:6B19:628F (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be the article in Penthouse (magazine) by a US Senator. This is not a document produced by the CIA itself. Instead the article made its way into a CIA file somehow, as a lot of press clippings and so forth did in the pre-internet era, even dissenting and dissident opinions. Basically some analyst or something thought it was interesting. And then a FOIA request caused it to be released in this state, with all the government markings and so forth written on it. What you have de monstrated is an inability to understand our sourcing policy or even to recognised what the source actually was.  Doug Weller  talk 07:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Yamla Thanks. I had raised this at NPOVN and an IP there has said the article is in the a-I area. I think it is making this whole thing moot. No alert on the talk page and I’m too tired to alert there and here, going offline now. Doug Weller  talk 21:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:.

Introduction to contentious topics
Doug Weller talk 07:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)