User talk:Di4gram

Edit warring / content at odds with sources

Please don't engage in edit-warring, especially edit-warring that is borderline WP:PROFRINGE and at odds with cited sources, as you did in the following diffs at Rothschild family:

• 20:37, April 27, 2017
• 19:48, April 29, 2017
• 17:50, April 30, 2017

If you want to improve wording, or you have other reliable sources to offer, you're welcome to come forward with it.

But many, many editors will take a very dim view of edit-warring in a bid to downplay the anti-Semitic nature of conspiracy theories relating to the Rothschild family. The anti-Semitic nature of these conspiracy theories is very well-attested in the literature. Saying that "I will wait until the 24-hour mark to re-instate my change," as you did in the talk page, is also likely to be seen as gamesmanship to circumvent 3RR.

Thanks, Neutrality^talk 04:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Unless you have a hidden policy or guideline that makes WP:TERRORIST irrelevant on the page in question, it will again be reverted. I suggest you take any further objections to a neutral third party, as you (the third of three accounts) are violating the edit warring policy. Apart from that, I do not care what you think is "downplaying" antisemitism or the fact that you are an admin yourself. The fact is that the material that is being restored is unencylopedic and does not belong on Wikipedia. There are several paragraphs of discussion that you are more than welcome to take part in. Edits that restore bad content will be reverted, it is not edit warring, and the 24 hours was very clearly given in the spirit of WP:3RR. I suggest you read the talk page, refresh yourself on the relevant policies, and stop accusing random users of bad faith "edit warring" when it's clear that you have not even read the relevant discussion and are, again, the third (or fourth) unique account to come out of nowhere to protest a minor change to the article that improves the quality of the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a magazine. Again, you are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but this is a clear issue of WP:LABEL and I am not satisfied that proper WP protocol is being used here. Di4gram (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)