User talk:98.191.131.222

May 2024
Hello, I'm Adam Black. I noticed that you recently removed content from Dog whistle (politics) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Adam Black talk &bull;  contribs 23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Actually, I did explain. The removed verbiage was factually false and defamatory, propagandistic and intended to cloture debate on disputed matters. Your restoration of it shows either a lack of understanding of the truth or a desire to defame people with views at odds with the political establishment.  That is not free speech.  That is character assassination. 98.191.131.222 (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The phrase in the warning template above is "without adequately explaining why". Your explanation was not adequate per Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech. Neither is it censored. It is an encyclopedia. The content in this section is well-sourced. I have no opinion on whether it is right or wrong, whether it is defamatory, or propaganda. If you disagree with the content, you are welcome to introduce a counter-argument providing it is reliably sourced, or you may open a discussion on the talk page as to whether the content should be removed. It is not appropriate to remove content from Wikipedia simply because you disagree with it. Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 00:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * While I understand your position, it seems rather self-serving, as Wikipedia is extremist about removing even well-sourced information with which it disagrees. Just because there is a source for something does not mean it is reliable. The ADL and SPLC, for example, are arguably illegal, unregistered agents of a foreign government which engage in espionage against United States citizens and the government, and which publicly defame individuals with whom they disagree. Consequently, they cannot be considered reliable sources for a web-site which claims to be an "encyclopedia." Nor can sources which derive from only one--biased--side of a disputed matter be considered "adequate" to justify posting only that side of the issue, especially when the article employes extremist rhetoric and name-calling. Wikipedia is fanatical about removing anything which a tiny group of people deem to be hostile to their interests, even when evidence and documentation are provided. Your "encyclopedia" is really interested only in being "thought police," as the instantaneous removal of my edits proves. 98.191.131.222 (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Whilst Wikipedia has its faults, the project's five pillars include that it is an encyclopedia, it is neutral, and there are no firm rules. I firmly believe in the ultimate goal of the project - to build a neutral, reliable, free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I'll agree with you that in many cases dissenting views are suppressed when they shouldn't be. But that is exactly what you are attempting to do here. You are free to introduce arguments into the article which counter what you don't agree with as long as it's properly sourced. Based on your comments about the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center (I assume those are the organisations you mean), I am sure that our views are diametrically opposed but I respect and will support your right to edit Wikipedia so long as you adhere to the relevant Wikipedia policies. Particularly, WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:LOP. Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 01:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Willis Carto, you may be blocked from editing. Lynch44 (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Hmmm. I fail to understand how removing falsehoods and defamatory statements, and entering true facts, is "disruptive." That sounds like an effort to preserve a propaganda narrative, not a legitimate concern for free speech and inquiry. 98.191.131.222 (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)