April 2019
edit
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Forum for Democracy, you may be blocked from editing. Removing sourced content and changing it to content with sources that do not support the information you add is not permitted. MrClog (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- I was not violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. I was doing quite the opposite. I didn't edit the article to spread an agenda, but to make it more politically neutral as it was clearly biased against Forum for Democracy. I provided sources that do support the information I added and in my opinion were much more valid than some foreign/left wing journalists' take on a Dutch right-wing party. I made my edit to give Wikipedia readers the most neutral point of view possible.
Your recent editing history at Forum for Democracy 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. IanDBeacon (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Excuse me, we'll talk it out on the talk pages.
Notice
edit
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 discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. 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.