User talk:67.239.78.150

Nicknames
Re: this, I have reverted your change because there has previously been a discussion about this subject on the article's talk page, and your change was not in line with the established consensus. Nicknames can absolutely be biased and pejorative as several have already argued, (and per the dictionary definition of nickname). It's ridiculous to suggest that a nickname has to be accepted by the Trump family in order to be included, since the threshold for inclusion is based on common usage in mainstream sources, not by his, or any other president's family. Note that since your change has been reverted, per Wikipedia editing norms, your recourse is to open a discussion on the article's talk page and seek consensus for the change you want to institute. Any resubmission without consensus will constitute edit-warring, which is not something the community takes lightly, particularly when you have removed this content at least once before. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: this and this, your second submission of this content is de facto edit-warring, which, since you've been at this for a couple of weeks now, is becoming severely disruptive. When you make a bold change and you are reverted, the onus is on you to open a discussion on the article's talk page to seek consensus, not to keep submitting the same stuff over and over. Is there any reason why you aren't willing to participate in a discussion about this on the article's talk page? Your recent submissions seem like arms-folded "Well if Wikipedia is gonna print something bad about Trump I'm gonna print something bad about Obama to teach it a lesson!" I don't know if that's terribly constructive when civil discourse might be more appropriate. Your sources need improvement, since you're trying to demonstrate that the name was commonly used. The Washington Examiner piece seems a bit fishy since nobody's put their name behind their thoughts. The C-SPAN reference seems a bit weak, because it's not the media criticizing Obama, it's a single representative. Typically we care what journalists and historians say and opine. Maybe this would be a better example. Note also that Trump has been called divider-in-chief as well, although I don't know that the nickname for either president is commonplace. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)