User talk:Emp0046

July 2024
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.— ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello ser!
 * I was surprised by the extremely biased nature of the content provided on this page while doing some research for my PhD. The 2 paragraphs I deleted were written in a manner which was not at all subjective. Facts can simply be stated without adding truth or falsity to them from the author’s perspective. The rest of the article seemed well done.
 * These two paragraphs seem a poor representation of Wikipedia…but I guess that’s what you get from a source such as this. I suppose I expected better!
 * Y’all obviously have an extreme dislike for this Peroutka chap. Carry on! Emp0046 (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not quite sure how including information for which the subject is notable is biased, and I for one do not think about Peroutka beyond occasionally editing his article. But if you think it's not subjective feel free to raise it on the relevant talk page for the article, where other editors who have the page watchlisted bar just you and me can see it. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 23:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it! I’ve already spent too much time on this. It is simply a concern of mine that phrases like “falsely claim” etc are inserted in purportedly subjective articles. why not just say that he claims it? Why add your own thoughts?
 * The author inserts their own bias regardless of how extreme they may consider the claims. It simply presents itself as unprofessional work. When someone like me comes across it, it has the tendency to negate the entire article or make me question it.
 * im new to Wikipedia so I was simply expressing my concern at the lack of professionalism. It doesn’t appear like an open minded group (one of the editors replied “I farted” 🤦‍♀️…) so I don’t think I’ll engage further.
 * thank you for the communication! Emp0046 (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)