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:

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)[reply]

@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 or anyone else thinks is "downplaying" antisemitism or the fact that you are an admin yourself- the fact of the matter is that taking an authoritative tone on a non-factual argument in an encyclopedia is inappropriate. 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- and that I am the only person actually providing justification for my edits. I didn't even care that much, but now it's becoming clear that there is a concerted effort to keep unencyclopedic content and that grinds my gears. As far as I am aware, there is not some prescribed level of antisemitic content for articles and even if there were, WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL would still take precedent. Accusing me of downplaying antisemitism for following WP protocol is a violation of WP:AGF and I would expect more from an admin. Di4gram (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uh .... I haven't edited the page (until just now), so I'm not sure where this "you ... are violating the edit warring" policy comes from. I'm warning you that you need to quit edit warring to establish a version that appears to diverge from what the sources say. :: By the way, when three or four users disagree with you, that's a strong sign that you need to stop and reconsider what you're going. Neutrality^talk 01:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you or do you not understand WP:LABEL? I am not removing facts nor am I adding any, so WP:PROFRINGE does not apply. Why are you having such a hard time with this? And why are you ignoring the policy discussion and appealing to popularity? "Many", "mostly", etc are weasel words and don't belong in Wikipedia articles. There is a discussion on the talk page- why didn't you post there to help achieve consensus before editing the article? Di4gram (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]