User talk:Qwerty3141592654

Your edits
Your edits on the Taleb page appear do not map the claims and are not WP:RS. They are not found elsewhere. Please use the talk page to build consensus before such edits. Limit-theorem (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually the same source denied the claim. Limit-theorem (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

You misquote the sources
Source says "He specifically picks up on the sentence in question, and tells Self that there are “problems with the numbers”. He suggests that where the article quotes him as saying “when they went to the wall we made $20 billion for our clients, half a billion for the Black Swan fund”, that should be changed to “when they went to the wall we made almost half a billion for the Black Swan funds” — deleting the erroneous $20 billion figure altogether." This appears to be a sock puppet and special purpose account aiming at violating WP:NPV regarding Taleb. Use talk page. Next time will go to administrator.Limit-theorem (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

You are suppressing the stories. The fact is that this controversy took place, and that several commentators agreed that Taleb's performance did not make sense. I'm fine with you editing that section, but please stop deleting it. Qwerty3141592654 (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * An entry in an encyclopedia that says "Taleb was misquoted in a newspaper article in 2008" is not relevant in an encyclopedia. I can put the wording but become WP:undue. Your other claims do not concern Taleb. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree, my friend. These are not claims. These are news articles. Jim Rogers explained why Taleb's claims (of $20 billion first, and of $250 million later) made no sense. Why don't you adjust the section? Deleting will only make the article worse. Qwerty3141592654 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It remains that, as other editors have noticed, you are publishing information that do not match the source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

May 2020
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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what was unclear about the message above, but since you've ignored it, I've blocked this account for 48 hours. If the behavior resumes when the block expires or you are unblocked, it will be made more permanent. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)