User talk:Markdhamdingers

June 2016
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at White genocide conspiracy theory, you may be blocked from editing. It's AIV or AN3 at this rate  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 06:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at White genocide conspiracy theory. ''AIV will be faster, but consider this your warning for edit warring too. You've hit the 3 revert line''  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 06:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The article is about the theory of white demographic displacement. Census figures on actual realized demographic changes are not original research. The are the meat of what the article is about. Are NASA temperature graphs "original research" at the climate change articles. Of course not and they are included. Nothing about providing a public domain government source as the factual background to an article discussing that very phenomenon is "original research" which is exactly why you originally choose "neutral POV" as the reason for deleting my edit. Thanks and have fun keeping the internet safe from facts you don't like.
 * The article is about a conspiracy theory. You are attempting to link (selective) demographic data to that topic. That's the definition of WP:SYNTH. You cannot take A and try to relate it to B. Reliable sources are the ones that need to make any connections, not editors. I don't know about the climate change page, but you're welcome to ask about their choice and source for data. I'd imagine they're using the same data another source used to present temperature trends.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 06:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you know of another, less biased source of population data than the US census's ethnicity tables over time? I don't see what logical jump you think my "research" is making. The page is effectively saying "some people believe policies are leading to fewer white people." Government statistics that illustrate the actual trend about which opponents and proponents of the "conspiracy theory" are arguing is not a synthesis, it's a picture of the issue itself. Are you honestly telling me if I go get a quote from a prominent white nationalist saying in effect "when I think about white genocide, I usually think about the decline in absolute numbers of whites outlined in recent US census data" you leave it in? Colour me skeptical. +


 * Also, the graphic that you loaded onto Commons does not appear to be original, & may be a graphic cobbled together by copy & pasting from Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics are Remaking America - William H. Frey - Google Books. This would be a copyright violation.


 * Furthermore, the name of the file does not represent the data in the graphic. Ipso facto from the data, it is absurd to conclude that anyone is actually carrying out genocide against white people. I have met Holocaust survivors who truly had people trying to kill them because of what background they came from. That was genocide.


 * Peaceray (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

So now you're not even talking about my supposed "original research;" but about your point of view that this theory is incorrect. However irrelevant that is to this discussion, do you see how your bringing up here along with a teary recital of your best holocaust stories makes me disinclined to believe your motivation here is based entirely on the maintenance of wikipedia original research policy?

Your recent editing history at White genocide conspiracy theory 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 article's 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.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I warned her about 3rr already, but thank you. Doubt this will be an issue much longer.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 06:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I would ask that you reply to my very realistic suggestion above for addressing your concerns. I'm not going to go through the effort unless you, as the diligent warden of this article confirm you understand my line of reasoning and will tolerate it. Also, while I trust it was not deliberate, I would ask as well that you not continue to misgender me.
 * Since you asked, I honestly would be open to the idea of such a graphic illustrating the trends that believers of "white genocide" consider as evidence supporting their belief. It would have to be from or related to a good source and depicted as neutrally as possible. I think we'd have to say something like "Example of demographic trends cited by Jane Doe as evidence of white genocide" or something so that we attribute it to the source. This is just my opinion on the matter and would likely need to be discussed on the article's talk page to gain consensus for inclusion. If done well, I'd support it and try to keep my personal beliefs in check. As for pronouns, I'll use masculine pronouns for here on out if that's what you use. The ol' "there are no girls on the internet" thing got me to start using feminine pronouns to be a contrarian, but I see now your username has a typical masculine name so I should have used "he/him". My apologies. FWIW, I appreciate you engaging in dialogue on the matter.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 07:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Warning re copyright violation
I see that the image was deleted at Commons as a copyright violation. Now that you know that, hopefully it won't happen again. If it does, you might be blocked. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)