User talk:DavidJac123

June 2014
You are well aware that the content you are trying to add is controversial. Please take it to the talk page, and try to obtain consensus for it before adding it again. As of now, you are edit-warring against several other editors, and are likely to get yourself blocked. You may also want to read our policy on sock-puppetry. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I did talk on the talk page.. No one responded.. The graph is from the book and it is not controviersial, and is relevant to the book. So discuss it with me before deleting it again.. thank youDavidJac123 (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Vanamonde93 (and other editors) on this issue. Please let's discuss your strongest rationale for editing the article text as you desire on the article talk page, without name-calling of other Wikipedians. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

name calling? I havent called anyone names. furthermore, I am not the one trying to edit ANYTHING, you are the one deleting half of the article all the time, without actually debating it. Stop doing it. I have readded everything again. Lets have a debate before we delete the whole article plz.DavidJac123 (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Warning of edit warring against consensus
Your recent editing history at Race Differences in Intelligence (book) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * you have clearly now broken the WP:3RR rule and should quickly revert yourself until you have shown a valid consensus exists on the talk page for inclusion. Violation of 3RR is subject to immediate action on normal articles, and this article is part of the race and intelligence discretionary sanctions where administrators are given even more authority take actions to prevent disruptions from editors who are not following consensus. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

No i am not violating any rule. YOU ARE THE ONE TRYING TO DELETE A WIKIPEDIA PAGE! I am just preventing you from doing it. You are the one who keeps deleting a page based on your personal opion. Can't see why it is wrong prevent you from doing it.DavidJac123 (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * before declaring adamantly that you are not breaking any rules, you would probably be wise to actually read the rules that have been linked for you. see WP:3RR and WP:CON. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:08, 28 June 2014 (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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Race Differences in Intelligence (book). 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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me. May i considered that a medallion, for going up against the political correct anti-racist establishment? =)DavidJac123 (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)