Fpjeepy
April 2019
edit
Hello, I'm GRuban. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Paul Singer (businessman) have been reverted or removed because they seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. GRuban (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia 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. ——SerialNumber54129 18:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Paul Singer (businessman). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 18:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Stop now
editYou've made a total of nine edits in your entire Wikipedia career, and eight of them have been libellous. Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox but reflects only what reliable sources say about the topic; if such sources call someone a philanthropist we call them a philanthropist, and if such sources don't call someone a murderer we don't call them a murderer. ‑ Iridescent 19:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@ ‑ Iridescent No
This is the first time I have been passionate enough about something to warrant my participation. I understand it's not my soapbox, but just because you have been here longer doesn't make it yours. You don't the right to perpetuate your opinions based on seniority.
li·bel
/ˈlībəl/ noun 1. LAW a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
I have cited sources, and my statements are not false. https://www.amazon.com/Billionaires-Ballot-Bandits-Steal-Election/dp/1609804783/ref=pd_ybh_a_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=8QX5CXP7WJCS3Z8RHK3H the book is a New York Times best seller. If it was libellous Greg Palast would have been sued.
April 2019
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ‑ Iridescent 19:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)- Adding to the above; the next block will be indefinite. If you seriously think a comic book is a reliable source for accusing a named individual of murder, then you don't understand the purpose of Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 19:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
‑ Iridescent "Don't judge a book by it's cover" ... It's not a comic book, despite having a cartoon on the cover... do a little more than 10 seconds of research before posting on my talk page please.
Fpjeepy (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Alternatively, you could do a little research into Wikipedia's bright line policies regarding biographies and neutrality before violating them repeatedly. If it becomes apparent, either through your postings here, or through your actions once the block expires, that you have no intent to educate yourself on how your edits are unacceptable, the next block will be of indefinite duration.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)