User talk:98.176.128.60

Welcome!

 * Thanks for the welcome. I am, however, confused by the rationale you offered upon reverting my contributions to Religious censorship. "Unconstructive" is subjective and, from where I sit, untrue. I justified the removal in my own edit summaries. The material in question relates to secular governmental censorship, and only tangentially to the topic of the article and the section, "In Christianity". The other comment - "no source" is absurd, given not only the fact that it is a removal of text, which has never required a source at all, but also because you restored at least one assertion that has no source at all. So the person introducing unsourced material is not me but you. I am reluctant to touch the article again as a result of your zealous automatic revert patrol, so I would encourage you to consider more thoroughly the content in question and my well-founded reasons for challenging it. 98.176.128.60 (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 your 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. Modernist (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So you're jumping into the fray instead of starting a discussion? What's your rationale for supporting an incorrect revert, and why are you accusing me of vandalism? 98.176.128.60 (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Mouna Traoré
You attributed your edit war on the Mouna Traoré article to me. What I wrote, when you incorrectly carried on the discussion on my talk page, was that there was a category and she meets the criteria for the category. No one is saying it's a defining characteristic of the subject, only a category into which she could logically be placed. That category is at Category:Black Canadian actresses. If you want to fight a race war, don't start small. Use the same logic you left on my talk page to request that category be delete. The process is described at Wikipedia:Deletion process. See content around "Categories for discussion". You're probably going to get yourself blocked if you continue your disruptive editing to illustrate your point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not editing disruptively, I am editing in good faith, according to Wikipedia policy. 98.176.128.60 (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not what at least one other editor thought. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Mouna Traoré. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2018 (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.
 * 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.
 * I have made ONE (1) revert on that article only. The other edits are not reverts at all. They are WP:BOLD edits attempting to address the concerns of those reverting me unconstructively. YOU, however, have made THREE (3) clear reverts within a 24-hour period. You are at WP:3RR. Consider yourself warned. 98.176.128.60 (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read the policy page at 3RR. Consecutive edits that undo other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Delete a cat. 1 Revert. Delete the punctuation to make your first point. A revert. Revert that edit. That's a clear revert. Add the template. Questionable, but I suspect that based on your behaviour, would be seen as a revert, but feel free to try your luck with an admin. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)