User talk:PeterTheFourth

Hello! If there's any reason you'd like to contact me, feel equally free to leave me a comment here or wikimail me- I should be able to reply fairly quickly in either case.

Edit warring notice

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 BRD 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Merphee (talk • contribs)

Andy Ngo

While I understand your point about there being no convictions about the attack on Ngo, many people, including myself, have seen videos on the local news channels that shows him being assaulted. I'm in the Northwest and different videos showing a mob following him and terrorizing him were shown on the news for days. He didn't even try to defend himself against the crowd. I don't have a link to a video but the fact that random people were punching him is borne out by videos showing the assault. There are photos of his injuries that were taken at the hospital and shown on the news. I think they'd be easy to find online.

I don't think one needs to agree with him politically to accept that he was a victim of crowd violence. There are people who falsely cry "victim" but in his case, his assault was documented. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: I don't disagree that Ngo was assaulted - I think that we should still use allegedly here, as that seems to be what is recommended by WP:BLPCRIME. If, in the future, the identities of the anti-fascist protesters who did attack Ngo were discovered we would definitely be using allegedly. There's also the possibility that the videos were edited in some way to remove context (ie maybe Ngo pushed somebody, it devolved, etc.) Am I being too finicky? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Articles related to American Politics

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. If you have questions, please contact me.

ST47 (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Template:Z33

Andy Ngo talk page

I don't care if you've read my comments, but you appear not to have read the source you're discussing. Either way, your argument with Galestar is now far removed from the goal of improving the article. This Sorry, are you Galestar? I'm responding to a very specific thing he quoted, not something you quoted, and it's honestly kind of annoying to have the goal posts moved like this is not appropriate to post on an article talk page. The article talk page is not there for you to argue one specific other editor. If you must argue, move it to one or another or your talk pages. I know that by getting involved I've now partially responsible for the situation, so I won't comment on it again. Also, I apologize that my initial response was unclear, and rude. That was not the correct way to approach the situation, I'm sorry. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Red Rock Canyon: Apology accepted - no big deal, nobody's perfect. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Alec Holowka

I think we should not restore that BLP violating content on the talk.-- Deepfriedokra 15:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: You seem to have a poor grasp of BLP if you believe that discussing on talk whether or not to mention the rape accusations against Alec Holowka, or linking to this tweet, violates our policies on biographies of living people. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I had no idea that Twitter is a reliable source suitable for allegations. I thought BLP applied in talk pages.-- Deepfriedokra 01:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I sincerely don't know how to address what is either a huge gap in understanding or an unwillingness to examine the situation at even the simplest level. It's beyond the level of effort I want to put in today. If you find this confusing, apply yourself more. I'm not going to help you. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)