User talk:Dingus1233

Edit War[edit]

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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024[edit]

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you recently removed content from Islamophobia without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. We go by what the sources say. And we are biased towards mainstream sources. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a clear explanation, stating that Wikipedia has no right to use the word 'irrational' in the context of Islamophobia. The word implies a political bias and is unfounded in any legitimate dictionary. Therefore, I advise you to revert it back to my version as explained in my initial edit. Dingus1233 (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, convince people at the talk page. Get consensus. Don't keep trying to force it in. I'm not the only person not happy with your edits. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus should be required to add it, not to remove it. The Oxford dictionary is standard and it features no such description. Dingus1233 (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've gone to the talk page, good. I've responded there. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dingus1233! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Karim Ahmad Khan that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is my mistake, but I see no point in keeping it. It is a moot point, don't you think? Dingus1233 (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s just that editors seeing that should be able to assume they don’t need to look at it. Doug Weller talk 18:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Wallace Jr[edit]

I've reverted that because clearly they wouldn't be Democrats today, just as Wallace isn't. They were Southern Democrats and your edit hid that. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And? They were members of the Democratic Party, and you have no right to try to work around that. I am aware of the differences between the Democratic Party in the 60s and today, but that is important history to highlight and enlighten people about. You are clearly acting out of bias here, and these revisions seem quite out of line. Dingus1233 (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Complain at WP:NPOVN. But do But if it's the history you are worried about, it's at Southern Democrats. So yes, I'm acting out of bias, it's important to show context - almost always. Doug Weller talk 16:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic alert for all pages related to American politics post 1992[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 14:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics alerts for all pages relating to the Balkans or Eastern Europe and the Arab-Israeli conflict[edit]

You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 15:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I reverted you at Karim Ahmad Khan because of the above. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. 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. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Do not threaten people in edit summaries. [1] O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for disruptive editing at Karim Ahmad Khan, violating the rule about having 500 edits and an account age of 30 days (which you had been warned about) and Islamophobia, reinserting bad edits from 23 May, plus silly threats about others being banned for vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 08:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]