User talk:51.7.13.118

March 2019
Hello, I'm Gooseflesh12. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Extinction Rebellion, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You need to cite a reliable source for ER's political beliefs, otherwise it will keep being reverted. ★ Gooseflesh12 ★ ( talk ) 17:30, 11 March 2019 (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.

DS Alert Climate change
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Extinction Rebellion 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. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Dontbite feedback
I am writing in the spirit of WP:DONTBITE. At Talk:Extinction Rebellion you posted the following


 * {|style="background:silver; color: black"


 * --Political Position Of This Organisation Needs Highlighting--
 * --Political Position Of This Organisation Needs Highlighting--

The left wing, political aspects of this organisation clearly need highlighting (sources below). There is clearly a pro big-state agenda here. No where do they mention that, assuming that carbon emissions need to be reduced, there are JUST two steps that need to be taken.

1. Scrap all 'subsides' and 'welfare payments' directed at energy (both things such as the UK's 'winter fuel allowence', and tax breaks for oil exploration).

2. Place an internationally agreed tax on carbon dioxide and other 'pollutants', priced in dollars, on all production everywhere. Increase this tax by a set amount each year.

The Market Will Provide.

Sources that show that this is primarily a political, non an environmental movement. https://www.socialist.net/extinction-rebellion-frustration-at-elite-s-impotence.htm https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/extinction-rebellion-is-a-wannabe-marxist-revolution-in-disguise/

There is no mention from 'extinction rebellion' of the free market solution that could solve climate change and keep the capitalist system that has provided so many technological advances for mankind. 51.7.13.118 (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/extinction-rebellion-activists-begin-march-from-cornwall-to-london Article by a paper started as the 'Daily Worker by the Communist Party of Great Britain' (wikipedia's own page on the 'morning star').51.7.13.118 (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC) Ordinarily I would offer criticisms at article talk, but in this case, you seem to be spreading politically POV edits hither and yon. Compare your comment "the market will provide" above with your adding "left wing" to multiple articles. Please review all the links about policies and procedures, and if you can edit calmly as though you have no particular dog in the fight either way, by all means try again. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * }
 * A. The first problem here is "clearly need" and "is clearly a pro big-state agenda". See WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:POV.
 * B. The second problem is "there are JUST two steps that need to be taken".  See WP:Original research
 * C. The third problem is you're relying on socialist.net to draw the conclusion in (B) above. That is a partisan blog from outside Extinction Rebellion, and is not what Wikipedia would call a [{WP:Reliable source]] abbreviated "RS"
 * D. The fourth problem is the spectator blog. That's also not an RS
 * E. The last cite, mornintstaronline, might be a Reliable source, but it doesn't support the claims you have made.

Are all of these you?
These three IPS suddenly popped up the last few days. Are they all you? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 51.7.13.118
 * 51.7.20.203
 * 51.7.53.5