User talk:209.118.130.10

January 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Thomas Farr. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Why is it "unconstructive," much less “vandalism” to add and source both sides of a controversy. As is, this article only presents the attacks on Tom Farr, not the defense and reaction to those attacks, from credible sources such as the Wall Street Journal? So it is okay in current Footnote #22 to source a self identified “progressive” weekly paper, the Indy Week, publishing and attack, but not the Wall Street Journal with a defense?

Finally, Muboshgu, you are an experienced editor, but rather than welcome a new contributor with suggestions for an alternative, you immediately threaten to ban? Are you not the one pushing a point of view?

Your recent editing history at Thomas Farr 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Respectfully it is only one editor, Muboshgu/Snooganssnoogans, (using two usernames) who is reverting, and refuses to justify his action, or otherwise discuss alternatives. I hope a similar warning was posted on his page? Since no response on talk page, is it not okay to restore (through a revert) the text that had been deleted?

---