User talk:Danielbr11

Hello, Danielbr11 and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are interested in learning more about contributing, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Red Director (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

List of United States cities by percentage of white population

Hi Danielbr11, on List of United States cities by percentage of white population, you wrote "Lincoln, Nebraska is the largest city with the highest percentage of Non-Hispanic Whites in America." What do you mean by that? Does it have the highest percentage of non-Hispanic Whites of all cities with population over 50,000? or 100,000? It's not clear. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Indirect abortion, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to my user talk-page

The place to discuss edits to an article is the article's talk-page (where other interested editors will see the discussion and may participate), not my user talk-page. I'd also suggest you first familiarize yourself with WP:OR and WP:BRD. You might also change your tone so as not to be needlessly confrontational. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

may you please then respond on the talk page so you can specifically tell me how the first sentence about russia references are off? One says russia has highest abortion rate other says more protestants than catholics. They are both original research and are sourced. Danielbr11 (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Christianity and abortion; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. NightHeron (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You also seem to be engaged in an edit war on List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll, according to the reverts you have made there. Everything said above about Christianity and abortion applies to List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll Rklahn (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not apply buddy i have posted scholarly peer reviewed articles you are just being obviously and hypocritically biased.Danielbr11 (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Your recent editing history at List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll 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.
Your edit has been contested and is under discussion. Wait for the talk page to reach consensus. Meters (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions for articles related to abortion

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 abortion. 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.

BlackcurrantTea (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

I am trying to edit the article to show 150 million as maximum estimate for Mass killings under communist regimes by providing The following peer reviewed scholarly sources https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C28&q=The+Russian+GULAG+Understanding+the+Dangers+of+Marxism+Combined+With+Totalitarianism&btnG= https://www.jstor.org/stable/24563310?seq=1 even a third and fourth backup source https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/disaster-red-hundredth-anniversary-russian-socialist-revolution/ https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg75859/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg75859.pdf

here it stated non neutral sources are allowed its simply the editing in the article that must be neutral. The article has both points of view because it has a minimim estimate AND a maximum estimate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutrality_of_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_means_neutral_editing,_not_neutral_content In fact look what it says here under achieving neutrality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view it says "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." And here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources it says "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Again the article shows both point of views as minimum and maximum estimates.

The two other users have been violating the above policies by deleting my edits simply because they view my sources as biased. Ps: In fact this article says “lack of consensus” in the notes for European colonization while there are also sources that say “unreliable source” next to them and even Rummel is used as a source on the list.Danielbr11 (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I caught this new section. Despite my thinking its premature, you should read up on dispute resolution, here. This has elements of both a content dispute and a conduct dispute, but I honestly think the place to start is editor assistance. Simply adding to your talk page will not get anyone's attention, in fact, its dumb luck I even saw this. Rklahn (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Don't delete a thread simply because you have decided that it should be in a different venue. You opened it, several editors have responded, and it's not for you to blank it. Just leave a note saying where the issue is now being discussed. Meters (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your arbitration request has been removed as premature

In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard also exists as a method of resolving content disputes that aren't easily resolved with talk page discussion.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi jazz so ive done the articles talk page and dispute resolution noticeboard at length and now they are completing the reliable source noticeboard discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Rudolph_Rummel where they have come to a contradicting conclusion. I dont see any other avenues since ive done these three to their end so is now adequate to pursue arbitration?Danielbr11 (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indentation/Threading on Talk pages

Hi Danielbr11! I know you're new and learning a lot, but I'd suggest reading WP:INDENT and WP:THREAD and indenting/threading your comments accordingly. It makes reading Talk pages easier because we'll know who you're replying to, plus it's better for editors who use screen reading software. Thanks! Woodroar (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll) for persistent disruptive editing.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of a question on Teahouse

I have sought advice on how to react to your Wikipedia behavior on The Teahouse. Im under no obligation to do this, but I thought the right thing to do was to give you notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rklahn (talk • contribs) 00:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I believe your account may have been compromised, and have reported it as such on the Administrators' noticeboard. Rklahn (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely not compromised. Their first edit in 2016 showed a problem with religion[1] and recent edits[2] indicate the same issue with the editor becoming more radicalized[3] in their WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS quest to label China's Family planning policy as being essentially the same "murder by government" as Khmer Rouge#Crimes against humanity.

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed ABAN and TBAN. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BOOHOO this site is a joke everyone can see athiest amd protestant majority countries killed more that catholic majority countries if you add up the list figues anyways. I see your edits got rejected as wellDanielbr11 (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edits get reverted all the time, usually by good-faith editors who came up with an even better version or noticed a mistake. Such reverts are welcome; see WP:BRD.

The WP:ANI discussion I linked to above currently has nine editors supporting a block or a ban and nobody who thinks you should be allowed to edit Wikipedia freely.

Have you ever considered moving over to Conservapedia, where your views on abortion and politics will be extremely welcome? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Views are irrelevant here at weaklingpedia. Facts are that killing of human life, in or out of womb, has been done way more in Protestant or Communist majority countries. Danielbr11 (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danielbr11 (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Given your recent edits concerning Wikipedia and its editors, this will presumably not be a concern to you.

However, if you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hmm but i didnt make one article edit after being banned from editing the list article?.. ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielbr11 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? Disruptive editing, personal attacks,. etc don't only happen in articles. Meters (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

meh after the list article ban i didnt do any personal attack or disruptive editing worthy of further ban but meh! what i wrote above in my talk page is that wiki already shows the truth of those ideologies without me having to edit further :) Danielbr11 (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you temporarily paused your disruption is irrelevant. You weren't blocked (blocked and banned are two different things; please learn the difference) to punish you for past disruption. You were blocked to prevent future disruption. If you had indicated that you understand what you did wrong, understand Wikipedia's policies, and made a commitment to stop the behavior that would have been a different story. Instead, you gave every indication that you intended to continue your disruptive behavior and needed to be stopped with a block. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After the list article ban, i did not say anywhere that i was going to continue editing the articles in fact i said wiki already shows the truth :] Danielbr11 (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly did make disruptive edits after the page block. The fact that you think calling other Wikipedia editors "You loonies" is acceptable speaks volumes. Goodbye. Meters (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes so everything i did up to the list article block warranted the list articlr block but then since i said loonies that warranted a total ban haha.. The fact that you all purged rummel cause i used his communism figures speaks volumes but look how your friends paul and boyam guy are having trouble on the mass killings under communist regimes page ;]Danielbr11 (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]