93.67.27.131

December 2020

Your recent editing history at Political correctness 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 18 December 2020 (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.

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 Political correctness, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 12:27, 18 December 2020 (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.

I probably have a pretty cynical view of everything here so understand this is my opinion. You are seeking a neutral Wikipedia in which equality is the goal. During my time here I realize that's never gonna happen. It doesn't happen in most cases. There is still a gender gap and probably always will be. It may even swing the other way eventually but there will still be a gap. There is a gap between Euro-American dominated articles and subjects and those of minor groups and international articles. This is the English wiki after-all. Wikipedia is considered "mainstream" which is to say, it is liberal in its leanings. That's a fact. It doesn't appear it has ever or will ever be about neutrality of message as much as it is about neutrality of sources. Wikipedia will not form an opinion about reliable sources, even if those sources are not neutral themselves. Personally, I have no time for either side. In my opinion both are destructive and only care about their own power and themselves and little about really helping anyone unless you face the same situation and are willing to conform to their idea for you. I am neither right nor left. I don't belong or affiliate with a political party and they don't really care about me. I like Doug and, though we probably would disagree on a lot, he isn't wrong here, it just is what it is. Pick your battles wisely, and go build some crafts or play a game or get out of the house and enjoy the outside more. The faster we ditch the left and right, and their respective flawed messages, the better we will be. But I wouldn't hold my breath on either to happen soon so just live life. Don't expect Wikipedia to change on anything. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 13:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Doug Weller. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 14:53, 18 December 2020 (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.

@bonadea that was a mistake, sorry. @ARoseWolf, obviously a neutral wikipedia will never exist, but at least I would like an undone edit to be motivated, and not with a "iT dOeS FOr mEEE!!". PS: multiple studies about the multivaried reasons of the gender gap show that there are 18 more relevant factors other than "discrimination" which cause it, and they're all related to women's choices and psychological differences between men and women. PS2: I love your passive-aggressiveness

as opposed to your aggressiveness and mocking attitude? I was motivated because I thought that section about right-wing political correctness was useful, particularly as it was sourced in part to a right-wing thinker. Doug Weller talk 15:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

It's evident we have different standards for what "useful" and "mocking" means. I consider answering "it does for me" to be both mocking, as it discards the other's argument without actually argumentating, and trivially useless.

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:Doug Weller, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2020 (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.

---