User talk:Encyclopedia Logic

Welcome!
Hello, Encyclopedia Logic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. Fettlemap (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020
Hello, I'm Perokema. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Immigration policy of Donald Trump have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Perokema (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

February 2020
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm LanHikari64. 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 Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I'm sorry, but claiming that a person "aims instead at destroying the conditions for organized human life" is not neutral. LanHikari64 (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

But what if that is what they are in fact doing?
 * Then provide reliable sources, and find a quote that says it. Also, please sign your discussion posts with 4 tildes in a row at the end of your message. LanHikari64 (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to James H. Fetzer. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I did not “add my own point of view” or “breach the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia” in merely changing the order of two terms in the article, and your suggestion that I did proves you are merely here to harass me. Had you read the article prior to editing it, you would have known Fetzer is primarily notable as a conspiracy theorist and the content of the article reflects this. Please stop harassing me.Encyclopedia Logic (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, you are clearly WP:NOTHERE not just because of recent bias but because of this edit. That is your choice but I think you have already received sufficient warnings about your behavior from multiple editors. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, so when you are proven wrong, you simply change the topic? What has this got to do with your accusation that altering the ordering of two terms “breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia” or whether Fetzer is primarily notable as a conspiracy theorist or philosopher? I accepted the reversion of the edit you have now shifted the goalposts to. Encyclopedia Logic (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on James H. Fetzer; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Sockpuppet investigation
LanHikari64 (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020
You have been blocked indefinitely for evading a block on IP 100.37.244.252. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

False socks
 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.