24.72.14.64

September 2019

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Social Democratic Party (UK), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

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

To which content are you referring, David J Johnson? 24.72.14.64 (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

You originally removed source(s) on "position" without giving any reason. You should always give a reason for any action you may take. David J Johnson (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@David J Johnson: How was it removed? It was merely properly formatted and moved to the end of the first sentence pursuant to WP:INFOBOXREF. And if that was the only issue, why would the rest of the edit have been reverted? 24.72.14.64 (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I repeat and for the final time - you did not explain your reason(s) for altering the info box, as you are required to do by Wikipedia conventions. If you are to continue to try to "contribute", in a constructive manner, to the the encyclopedia (rather than a host of drive-by changes), I suggest you abide by the conventions and create an account for yourself - rather than hiding behind a IP number. Case closed. David J Johnson (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

So we're agreed that the reference wasn't, in fact, removed, David J Johnson? If so, you would best withdraw your warning.

Are you contrasting "a host of drive-by changes" with constructive contribution to the encyclopedia? Is that to say that WikiGnoming is unconstructive? And lastly, why would my choosing not to mask my IP address as you do constitute "hiding"? 24.72.14.64 (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Knights Templar, you may be blocked from editing. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

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

@Vif12vf: Why the unexplained reversions? 24.72.14.64 (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Never write "per cent" on wikipedia, the percentage symbol (%) excists for a reason! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

How do you reconcile that position with MOS:%, Vif12vf? And why the level-three warning? 24.72.14.64 (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Social Democratic Party (UK), you may be blocked from editing. Do not remove sources or sourced content without a valid reason or concensus! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

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

What is your concern with the edit, Vif12vf? And what content are you suggesting to have been removed? 24.72.14.64 (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Answer

In response to your query, "What leads you to believe 'activists [are] overrunning Wikipedia' when there is unanimous opposition to this proposal?": Obviously, it's the frequency with which we're recycling the same extremist gender-studies obsessives versus the English language debates like the one at hand recently. Wikipedia is not a forum for socio-political debate. The site being overrun with WP:GREATWRONGS advocacy noise doesn't mean that those noise-makers are "winning"; they're just increasingly tendentious and disruptive. Fortunately, the noisiest of them just got topic-banned again last month, and it's a good precedent for dealing with the others who just will not stop campaigning to force WP to write in confusing specialized contortions instead of mainstream English.  — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 06:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

---