User talk:81.226.93.28

September 2023
Hello, I'm Ingenuity. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Jon Schaffer have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * it isn't vonstructive to use politically biased language, calling it an attack when it was a protest, violent when it was mostly peaceful. You are keeping the article full of leftist propaganda and not truth. There are MANY videos showing how they were let in by officials and shown around by police, who open3d doors for them. Walking around peacefully. Stop calling it an attack. It simply was not. 81.226.93.28 (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Jon Schaffer. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.  Eye snore  14:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * you are adding your own personal political bias to the article. Tell the truth. It was not an attack. It was not violent. They were let in and shown around by police. It's all on video. YOU are the one breaking the rules by adding your own political bs to the article. 81.226.93.28 (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Jon Schaffer, you may be blocked from editing.  Eye snore  14:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Go ahead, block my vpn. It's hardly a neutral vire you're going with when you call a protest an attack. 81.226.93.28 (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not a Wikipedia administrator, so I can't block.  Eye snore  14:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Jon Schaffer. Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you use inappropriate or abusive edit summaries again, as you did at Jon Schaffer, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --AntiDionysius (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * stop using politically biased wording. You're angling the article according to leftist propaganda. The protest was not a riot or an attack. They were let in by officials and shown around inside by police, who even opened doors for them. Go watch the multitude of videos on it and stop being a propaganda bot. 81.226.93.28 (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You are replying to a note about you using abusive language in edit summaries, which you did. It has nothing to do with "leftist propaganda".
 * Though if you would like to talk about the substance of the article, I would advise you to read my edit summary, where I noted: 'Wikipedia works by consensus. Consensus has been established on this, as you can tell by the fact that the main article on the Capitol Attack is called "the Capitol Attack". You could try change the consensus, if you wanted, but you would have an obligation to do that via the talk page'. Even if you are right about the appropriate wording to describe January 6th, unilaterally changing it is not the way to do it; we talk about these things. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Jon Schaffer 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.  Eye snore  15:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. 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:. PhilKnight (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you.  Eye snore  15:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)