User talk:Balance213

By the same criteria you use, it could be said that there is no reason to include in the first place the "non-notable" SPLC source and their criticism/labeling of NPI. If the SPLC's criticism of NPI is valid, then so is TNO's criticism of the SPLC. Pick one, you can't have it both ways.

=Your edits at National Policy Institute=

Hi. I reverted this edit that you and User:Balance3241 keep adding to the page. I assume the other account is also you, given the similar names and the fact that the two accounts seem interested only in that particular edit. Please be aware that using multiple accounts is disfavored, and using multiple accounts for an improper purpose (such as edit warring) will get you sanctioned. Dyrnych (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am not using multiple accounts intentionally. I lost the password to the first account, and will be sticking with the second one.


 * I reverted your changes back. By removing my edit, you are biasing the article by censoring certain information from readers, which is a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality point of view (NPOV).  Give readers both viewpoints and let them decide for themselves, rather than unfairly presenting the SPLC as the sole authority on NPI's reputation.


 * You need to take a more careful look at WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The view you're trying to include (1) does not come from a reliable source and (2) is not significant.  NPOV doesn't mean "include all possible views and let the reader sort out which ones are significant."


 * Also, you're edit-warring. Please follow WP:BRD and discuss the content on the article's talk page instead of just restoring it.  Multiple users believe it's inappropriate, and the burden is on you to get consensus for its inclusion. Dyrnych (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, It's YOU that's edit warring. I'm just trying to be helpful in providing user's more information.  The point you're missing is that the SPLC is not any more or less reliable than The New Observer.  By what criteria are you judging the SPLC as "reliable" and not TNO???  I take issue with the SPLC as a reliable source.  The New Observer is not the only publication to criticize it.  There are major publications, including the Washington Times and Human Events that have criticized it as a hate group.  You should really be the one to take another look at the NPOV, because YOU ARE BIASING THE ARTICLE with arbitrary criteria on "reliable" sources.


 * You said, "There is no reason to include a non-notable source's criticism of the SPLC, especially when that criticism is unrelated to the article's subject." So, by the same criteria you use, it could be said that there is no reason to include in the first place the "non-notable" SPLC source and their criticism/labeling of NPI. If the SPLC's criticism of NPI is valid, then so is TNO's criticism of the SPLC.  Pick one, because you can't have it both ways.  If you remove the last section altogether, I will leave it alone, but you are not going to quote the SPLC as some higher authority.


 * You're misunderstanding the issue here. The SPLC is certainly a reliable source for its own statements.  For that matter, The New Observer is also reliable for its own statements.  But the SPLC is a notable source, while The New Observer is not.  Further, the SPLC is commenting specifically on the NPI, while The New Observer is making a general (and hyperbolic) claim.  Again, the issue is that you need consensus for your edit and you don't have it.  This discussion is best reserved for the article's talk page.  Dyrnych (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The only misunderstanding is on your part. You have yet to delineate what makes the SPLC "notable" and not The New Observer.  The SPLC's criticism of NPI as "white supremacist" is general (and hyperbolic).  Again, there will either be both criticisms, or neither.
 * The "New Observer" is not a reliable source. More like exactly the opposite. Please stop trying to add this garbage into the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, actually the SPLC is not a reliable source. More like exactly the opposite. Please stop trying to add this garbage into the article.

Stop Edit Warring
I don't fully know why you are still going on about this. You are lighting up my feed like the switchboards after a major event. Make yourself familiar with WP:EW. At this point, it doesn't matter if you are right, you will be banned if you further edit the page for the near future. I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with WP policies and guidelines before you continue. Jab843 (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2016 (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. Thank you. Dyrnych (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * What part of the bright-line rule against reverting more than three times in a 24-hour period is eluding you? You're up to seven reverts at this point with not even an attempt to gain consensus for including the material you—and only you—insist MUST be included. Dyrnych (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at National Policy Institute, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Justeditingtoday (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at National Policy Institute. Justeditingtoday (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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. Materialscientist (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)