User talk:Eurostatter

Disambiguation link notification for June 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited White genocide conspiracy theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paste ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/White_genocide_conspiracy_theory check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/White_genocide_conspiracy_theory?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

about KALERGI PLAN ..................https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalergi_plan
the voice is full of errors. The links are only Italian. Why not Germans and non-English because Klergi only wrote in German and never in Italian? Very few in ITALY can read and translate texts in German of 1910, strange improvised journalists. The links of ON-LINE magazines of very little circulation and all politically oriented. As if CHARLIE HEBDO (FR) considered it an encyclopedic source! '''How come instead, entire books dedicated to Kalergi of 200 pages, written by historians and former high school principals do not put them? Why don't you put the last book of 311 pages, entirely dedicated to Kalergi and the Kalergi plan, and your family history with the greasy ones with the newspapers of the 1882 era not quoted as sources?''' Why do you consider encyclopedic sources, instead of the 2 A4 pages, on newspapers with almost non-existent sales runs, paltry, and all politically of a single political approach? This is not ENCYCLOPEDIC, but it is PROPAGANDA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalergi_plan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.101.0.30 (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring
Your most recent (second) revert to Steve King was inappropriate. Your changes are clearly contentious, and there is currently an uneasy consensus in favour of the current language for the lead. Per WP:VNOTSUFF: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content".

WP:STATUSQUO also explains: "Instead of engaging in an edit war, which is harmful, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives. During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo (except in cases where contentious material should be immediately removed, such as biographies of living people, or material about living people in other articles)."

You are currently edit-warring, and should open a thread on the talk page to discuss your changes instead. Endymion.12 (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Before I start looking for potential WP:SOCK-master accounts, can you also please account for your prolific recent activity on Wikipedia and knowledge of Wikipedia process having only registered in May, and also having only posted on a talk page on one occasion since then. Endymion.12 (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)