User talk:FairBol

Welcome!

Hi FairBol! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Voltmend (talk) 5:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Voltmend ببین بد بختتت مکنم حال بببین 5.127.136.168 (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important message

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-1992 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

—Paleo Neonate – 23:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

POV vandalism at January 6 United States Capitol attack

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at January 6 United States Capitol attack. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Vandalism is bad enough, but whitewashing to change the meaning of what reliable sources say is really bad. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "whitewashing" anything. The charges that you make here about Trump are total BS. Were you aware that he did in fact request the National Guard a day before the event, but was refused? Did you know that police let protesters into the building that day? And how about Mike Pence? Are you aware that, as presiding officer of the electoral college, it was within his power to throw out the disputed votes? Probably not...because the media didn't tell you any of this. You're just repeating the talking points of the sham Committee and Adam McCarthy...(coughs)...excuse me, I mean Schiff. Give me a damn break! FairBol (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making any charges about Trump. Reliable sources (RS) do that, and our job is to document it. The article is created by many editors of all political persuasions who put aside their personal views and document what RS and investigations say. When you find that your personal POV is at odds with what our articles say, it's safest for you to assume you are ignorant or have been misled by bad sources. In this case, it's pretty obvious you are getting false information from really bad sources. You really should read the sources for the content you don't agree with.

Regarding the National Guard, I suggest you search the article for those words. Trump wanted them to protect the rioters, not to protect Congress or Pence. Even though Trump knew that some rioters were armed, he demanded the magnetometers be turned off so they could get past security. Then he sent them to the Capitol. Crazy!

Pence had no such authority. If he did, then we would have seen that authority exercised repeatedly in previous elections, but it's never happened because it doesn't exist. This one factor (there are many others) in Trump's conspiracy to steal the election came to be known as the "Pence Card" conspiracy. There is no evidence of wide-spread voter fraud. Trump lost the election by a large margin, and Biden is the rightful president. Trump is a huge liar whose Big lie of a "rigged election" is really damaging, leading to a violent coup attempt and division and distrust of the electoral system.

Trump is the one who has tried to steal an election he lost. He even tried using fake electors. He is the one who has tried to rig elections, including by cooperating with Russian election interference to put him in power. The Russians still openly brag that they elected Trump in 2016. When a country's enemy supports a candidate for president, stop and ask "Why would they do that?" Clearly because he is more loyal to them than to us. There are reasons why he has never condemned Putin. He started plotting with them in 2013, before Americans knew of his plans, and the hostess who aided him at the 2013 Miss Universe contest in Moscow revealed they had been talking by posting a tweet. Why would he be plotting with America's enemy? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at January 6 United States Capitol attack

Your recent editing history at January 6 United States Capitol attack 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. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]