User talk:PartyLike1776

September 2019
Hello, I'm 331dot. 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 Assault rifle 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. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Your recent contributions at Assault rifle appear to show that you are engaged in edit warring; 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 override another editor's contributions. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

My recent edit
I apologize for re-editing against the rules. I’m editing from my phone and figured it wasn’t working so I re-edited. I will no longer edit. As far as being neutral on your part, if there are no legal definitions of terminology, why are you choosing a far left definition. Why do you allow and lock from re-editing your demeaning terminology for those that are “far right”. You are far from neutral and terribly biased. PartyLike1776 (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia summarizes what appears in independent reliable sources and does not just use legal definitions. If there is a definition of assault weapon that you feel merits inclusion, please gather any independent sources that you have to support that definition and discuss the matter with other editors on the article talk page in a collaborative manner.  Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias; it just summarizes what others state.  Any bias in sources will certainly be reflected in Wikipedia; Wikipedia does not "choose" any definition for political reasons.
 * If Wikipedia is not compatible with your social or political views, I would suggest finding a project that is compatible with your views(or starting your own) like Conservapedia or other similar project. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Just by insinuating that I should check out Conservapedia is proof enough that you serve a leftist political agenda. Your allowance of left wing bias and quick deletion of right wing bias is proof. Right and Left bias feeds a political agenda whether you “choose” for “political reasons” or not. Thank you for your time and no hard feelings. I’m not angry, nor do I harbor any harsh feelings, but I pray for the best for you. PartyLike1776 (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was simply trying to help you out. I have no agenda whatsoever other than the maintenance of this project.  We certainly welcome and need people of all political views if they are willing to act in a collaborative manner with other editors.  However, you are certainly entitled to your views. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)