User talk:WolfHook

June 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Special relativity, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

July 2019
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page White pride has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate and misleading. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 12:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I seriously considered blocking you for that but opted for the warning above. But don't try that again (and please don't try to argue your way out of it - your edit summary gave no clue you were adding material: "Moved sources and material located elsewhere in the page to the top that challenge the prominent narrative provided by the top sourced material. No change was made whatsoever to any existing material, only the prominence of the counter-narrative." As for "no change was made whatsover to any existing material", you changed "primarily" to "historically". Doug Weller  talk 12:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

August 06, 2019WolfHook (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Response: "Hello Doug. If you read carefully, 'moving sources elsewhere in the page to the top to challenge the prominence of the narrative' isn't really adding material, it's providing clarity on the existence of the material as people see it. It's nice to know your strange and political spin on the situation though. And I hardly think changing a single word which I found to be more technically correct to be a drastic alteration to the source material. Its actually so minute I'd simply forgotten about it. Given the content of the page, I think you'll agree that 'historically' is more accurate of a word. Also if my contribution is inaccurate and misleading, then why does that content appear elsewhere in the page, having been contributed there and kept by other wiki users? Indeed very strange. Your unecessary undo has itself been undone. I fail to see what problem you specifically have with this edit. Thanks for reaching out to me though. I would suggest in the future you keep your anger and threats to a minimum to be taken seriously :D "

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 12:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You may wish to review WP:NPOV as well.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

August WolfHook (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Response: "How is it my own point of view when that content exists elsewhere in the page? And also when that content has sourced and valid material? I was under the impression wikipedia had a no censorship policy? Very disconcerting to see such biased admins."

White pride
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.

September 2019
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Hunter Biden, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''Article is under WP:1RR. I could've blocked you already but I'm trying to be nice. Do not reinsert.'' – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

How did I vandalize Hunter Biden's page you cuck? Provide a quote. WolfHook (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Muboshgu. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)