User talk:Debauched Libertine

January 2017
Hello, I'm IgnorantArmies. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Trump: The Art of the Deal seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  13:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you made a mistake. Please do not mistake Wikipedia for a platform for your hateful, alt-right views. America is a place for men and women of all colours, nations, and creeds, friend. We will not tolerate your intolerance, here.Debauched Libertine (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This user does not have a neutral point of view and is making a mess of Inauguration of Donald Trump. --66.127.146.6 (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

By adding sources? The protests OF THE INAUGURATION are relevant to THE INAUGURATION. Please point out one thing I wrote that is not backed by sources, troll. Debauched Libertine (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017
Your recent editing history at Inauguration of Donald Trump‎ 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.''Please don't re-add the material until there is consensus on the talk page. You are edit-warring with multiple editors and are at, if not over, the 3 revert limit. Continuing to push your addition without consensus will end up with you being blocked.'' Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

clpo13(talk) 20:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

My edits are sourced. Stop hounding me and provide a reason-based argument as to what is wrong with the objectively factual, reliably sourced info I added. Name one thing I wrote that is irrelevant, lacks sources, or is false. I'll be waiting. Debauched Libertine (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Trump lost the popular vote by 2.865 million votes, or a margin of 2.1 percent, making him one of the biggest losers (of the people's vote) to ever be inaugurated as president. He will also be the oldest president at the time of inauguration, as well as the first to be inaugurated without any prior experience in government, public service, or the military. Highly irrelevant and has nothing to do with the protests. Perhaps you should read WP:DUE. clpo13(talk) 20:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) 1- Even if I granted you the claim that the loss in the popular vote has "nothing to do with the inauguration" somehow, this hardly provides a reason to remove the info on the protests of the inauguration, which just obviously are relevant and no one can in good faith argue that they are not.
 * 2) 2- The above information is manifestly relevant to the inauguration because it provides the controversial context of his inauguration: he is, controversially, being inaugurated despite having lost the people's vote, a notable event, which has occurred but a handful of times in the history of humankind. You have no good faith basis for your arguments other than you wish to insulate your beloved master from anything less than fawning, worshipful adulation.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2017 (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. Ravensfire ( talk ) 20:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)