User talk:Swoods72

February 2022
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rose City Antifa. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Rose City Antifa. FDW777 (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Rose City Antifa 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 20:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Start telling the truth without leftwing bias and I won't have to change it. Who are you, anyway? Some person who sits around monitoring Wikipedia all day as unpaid entertainment? What I wrote was true - the former President labeled them as a terrorist organization. Swoods72 (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You need a source for that. We don't aim to tell the WP:TRUTH, we merely try to summarise what reliable sources say about a subject. We also don't label people as terrorists, unless there are damn good sources that say they are. On Wikipedia we expect people to understand that. You are currently this close to getting blocked. If you want to contribute sensibly, you had better reply to your WP:ANI case very convincingly. Kleuske (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You may want to bring up WP:BITE in your defense. Kleuske (talk)
 * And yes, that person sitting around keeping the nonsense out, to the general benefit of mankind, that's me. And I don't even get paid for it. Kleuske (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Block me? Tragedy strikes. Say it isn't so. You guys collectively are fools with agendas. Swoods72 (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 20:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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:. Doug Weller talk 09:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)