User talk:76.109.193.203

April 2018

Hello, I'm Donner60. An edit you recently made to National Fascist Party seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I find you explanation satisfactory but I think you should cite a source or someone else may dispute it. Helpful information about editing Wikipedia can be found on various Wikipedia guideline and policy pages including: Help:Getting started; Wikipedia:Introduction; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style; Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources; Wikipedia:Citing sources; Help:Footnotes; Wikipedia:Verifiability; Wikipedia:No original research; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; Wikipedia:Notability; Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons; Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; Wikipedia:Words to watch; Help:Introduction to talk pages; Wikipedia:Copyright Problems and Help:Contents. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at National Fascist Party shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 your 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. Doug Weller talk 06:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

National Fascist Party

I'm replying to your message on my talk page here because my reply concerns your behavior, which other editors have already commented on here.

You said, "Please tell me why you think it is alright to just call the political positioning of the National Fascist Party as 'Far-Right'." I think it is all right because that's the description given by most standard, mainstream, reliable sources. That's what Wikipedia uses. If those reliable sources reported that the National Fascist Party was a conspiracy of lizard aliens, Wikipedia would describe its ideology as "Lizard-alien takeover".

If you believe that the description is wrong, you should not simply keep changing it back to your preferred version; you should discuss the matter.

1. Find some good solid verifiable sources that agree with your position.
2. Bring up the matter on Talk:National Fascist Party.
3. Make a rational, civil argument in order to gain consensus.

"The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.". Don't be surprised if the consensus goes against you. If it does, drop the matter until you can marshal a better argument.

I realize that you may feel that "standard, mainstream, reliable sources" are the problem--that these sources' conclusions are exactly what you're objecting to. That's not relevant, because Wikipedia is effectively--and by design--a content aggregator. And the content Wikipedia aggregates is the content of the aforementioned "standard, mainstream, reliable sources". Complaining about it is not effective; that's what Wikipedia is. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

National Fascist Party

I have decided not to block you even though you are clearly edit-warring, but you cannot edit the page now. You need to get agreement for your proposed change to call it syncretic and the only way you will get that is to show that multiple sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS call it syncretic. We can't analyse it ourselves to give it that label, read WP:NOR. Doug Weller talk 07:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Your latest message

You're failing to get the point. You're trying to argue me into agreeing with your position. I neither agree nor disagree. In fact, I don't care whether you're right or wrong. I don't care whether "far-right" is right or wrong, either. What I care about--and what other Wikipedia editors care about--is what conventional, mainstream sources say. If they say "syncretic", Wikipedia should say "syncretic". If these sources say "far-right", Wikipedia should say "far-right". The end.

The other thing Wikipedia editors care about is behavior. This is a project that relies on cooperation and collaboration. Edit-warring is not cooperative, not collaborative, and not constructive.

If you want your changes to be accepted, you're going about it all wrong. You have been given good advice, by me and by other editors, on how to do it better. Here it is again.

1. Stop edit-warring.
2. Stop trying to convince people that you're right.
3. Start trying to show people that there are good, reliable sources for this information.

Finally, if you want to continue this discussion, I suggest you reply here, so that all the text will be in one place. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

---