User talk:82.33.72.42

Edit-warring on Elections in Cuba
Your recent editing history 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Read wp:brd and wp:consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I have. It seems the requirement for a consensus only applies to me, though. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest you do not try and dismiss users or edits as being some kind of capitalist lap dog imperialism or whatever (read wp:soap). You removed sourced content, sources to very good RS. It is down to you to make a valid (policy-based) case as to why they are not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And yet it is acceptable for others to accuse me of supporting fringe theories? I removed no sourced content, I merely properly contextualised and presented other sources for balance. I will admit to my own biases but I am endeavouring to make non-partisan edits, the same cannot be said of other users. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You removed sources and placed a +CN tag, and yes you did remove contact such as "elections are are nominated by organs that are firmly controlled by the Communist Party of Cuba.".Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me what sources I removed? Adding a citation needed tag to unsourced content is not allowed now? Also, I did not remove "elections are are nominated by organs that are firmly controlled by the Communist Party of Cuba." If you look at my last revision (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elections_in_Cuba&oldid=1037456217) at the end of the second paragraph I have "others have argued that despite public participation the local organisations and electoral committees responsible for candidate nomination remain firmly controlled by the Communist Party of Cuba." with the same citations given by Snoogans. I reworked it slightly to flow better but the content is the same. Please apologise for this false accusation. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This is your last warning, stop with the wp:POV pushing, make policy-based arguments (not POV based ones) or I will report you for wp:disruptive editing.Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your argument that state-run media is inherently less reliable than private media is not an objective policy-based argument, and is based on your POV. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Read wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Read WP:Systemic Bias 82.33.72.42 (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not a policy wp:rs is.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is what is says "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", do Cuban propoganda outlets have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and are they "independant"?Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Western "independent" sources only have that reputation among other western sources, you are operating from an ideological bubble. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, you are continuing to lie about me and mischaracterise my actions. If you think this is an incident worth raising with the admins, why can't you be truthful? 82.33.72.42 (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021
Your recent editing history at Human trafficking in North Korea 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  Pachu Kannan (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on United States Central Command. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. BilCat (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.


 * You've received edit-warring notices on three topics in less than a month. Did you think you could go on like that indefinitely?  Acroterion   (talk)   01:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems that punishments for edit warring are handed out on an ideological basis. Why are other users allowed to make edits without consensus to push their POV, but when I make edits to restore neutrality it is classed as edit warring. In the case of the United States Central Command article User:3Kingdoms reverted my revert without engaging in the talk page. In general, how is consensus supposed to be achieved when some editors simply refuse to discuss? I find it telling that most of my disputes are with users who clearly are able to spend all their time editing wikipedia, and must therefore be paid to do so or independently wealthy; if the former they are obviously pushing some agenda, if the latter they will have some natural bias due to their wealth. It becomes harder for occasional editors like myself, from poorer backgrounds, to make our voices heard as we simply don't have the time to devote to these disputes full-time. Wikipedia seemingly has no way of mitigating this obvious source of systemic bias. Users often make obviously partisan statements to dismiss the validity of sources, representing a clear ideological world view. As an aside, an admin with the username User:Neutrality who spends their time pushing blatantly partisan points is laughable. This whole experience has soured my opinion on the reputation of Wikipedia, your systemic ideological bias has been laid bare. Pages like Elections in Cuba or Communist Party of Cuba now read like reports from the US State Department. There is a certain circular reasoning, western sources describe Cuba as an authoritarian dictatorship, therefore sources from Cuba that dispute that cannot be reliable, therefore the only sources that are reliable are those that attack Cuba. Over and over again, these anti-communist sources are assumed to be axiomatic. Most laughable is the idea that the United States, a country that bombed 85% of all buildings in the DPRK in a clearly monstrous terror campaign and has remained hostile to that country to this day is a reliable source on anything to do with that country. Honestly, can you take one look at the Communist Party of Cuba page and tell me this reads like an encyclopedia? 82.33.72.42 (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You've been bouncing from topic to topic to argue. You can;t do that. Being right, or asserting that you're right, is not a justification for edit-warring. If this recurs, you will be blocked for longer terms.Administrators aren't interested in why you edit-war, only your behavior. The topic is immaterial.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Other users were clearly edit warring as well by reverting my contributions, why have they not been warned? In one case I attempted to put an edit warring warning on a user's talk page and they simply removed it. How is this fair? 82.33.72.42 (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Because you're the one going from topic to topic, picking fights and blaming other people for your behavior.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I guess editors shouldn't ever edit multiple pages? This is mind-blowing news to me! 82.33.72.42 (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The onus is on the editor who proposes a change to justify their edits. Going from topic to topic to argue that everybody else is wrong and your'e right is the issue. Many editors have disagreed with you. You must gain consensus through persuasion, based on a consensus of reliable sources.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Look bud I wish I could get paid to do editing, I can assure no one is dropping unmarked $100 bills in my mailbox to do this. I don't do this every day this really is not all that time consuming. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)