User talk:HJBC

HJBC, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi HJBC! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SPECIFICO talk 11:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO Feel free to start a discussion on talk, I'll gladly try to come to a common agreement with you. In fact, that's exactly what I did regarding another dispute. If I was in an "edit war" I would simply have removed that information and source entirely, but I still left them there, with only a change in words that were judging something that is not up to wikipedia or its editors to judge, especially when there is not a definitive conclusion to that matter. HJBC (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the page at WP:3RR that is linked above. This is not about the merit of your views. You will be blocked from editing if you violate this rule. SPECIFICO talk 14:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, I only made 3 revert actions in the span of 24 hours:

1 - 16:47, 26 August 2017. Undid revision 797347497 by Somedifferentstuff.

2 - 23:48, 26 August 2017‎. Undid revision 797421732 by 69.172.177.49. This is actually an action against vandalism, because 69.172.177.49 changed the text and its meaning completely of what the sources used were saying, which falls under the "Sneaky Vandalism" definition of this page: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalismVandalism and I quote: "Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection, including adding plausible misinformation to articles (such as minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes)". In this case, that minor change in question was that 69.172.177.49 changed the text to one saying Stefan should NOT be seen as alt-right because those sources define him as alt-right. So this revert action shouldn't count towards the The three-revert rule, as it falls under exemption #4 - "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." Although I personally agree with 69.172.177.49, that's just my opinion and not a source and that's the reason I reverted his actions.

3 - 02:56, 27 August 2017. Undid your revision that added unfit judgemental meaning to the line, that uses a heavily biased article written by a non-expert person on the subject from a website that is not specialized in such content and does not provide a single scientific source for that statement. Still, I left the source there as I'm willing to actually debate over it instead of simply removing.

That's still within the tolerable amount according to that rule, is it not? HJBC (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever edited under a different User name?

Please respond. SPECIFICO talk 15:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is my very first and only account. HJBC (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So your only purpose here is to contribute to the Stefan Molyneux article? SPECIFICO talk 20:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not my only purpose. But I'm focusing on that article right now instead of going into some kind of "edit rampage". One article at a time, you know? If there is some kind of rule that states every user has some kind of edit goal of different articles to reach, please let me know.

What kind of question even is that? Should I ask you now why you have been only active in one general subject over the past week? I took a look at the "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity" talk page and a user there is even saying someone else is helping you edit war and there is IP hopping involved. Which is kind of ironic, I think, but also reminds me to ask you (since you didn't made any more comment on that): after my reply regarding your warning of edit warring, do you still think it is valid? HJBC (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes people who open an account and then focus on one article are not new to Wikipedia. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see, that sucks. I'm really just a newbie here, if you look at that article's talk page, you will notice I asked other people about things I couldn't understand before and also my text format has been slowly becoming better, quoting people more clearly and whatnot.HJBC (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]