User talk:Digg396

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Welcome

[edit]

Hello Digg396 and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber), do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a Help desk, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Bon courage (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

[edit]

Warning icon Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Glenn Beck, you may be blocked from editing. Cannolis (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck u Digg396 (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
where is the so-called vandalism? Digg396 (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm CNMall41. I noticed that you recently removed content from The Daily Caller without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. CNMall41 (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you removed two sources because you could not personally read them. While this is frustrating when it happens, it is not WP policy to do so. Paywalled sources are still WP:RS and even if a source is a dead-link, if it's still accessible via archive.org then it can also still be used provided it meets source reliability guidelines. I would strongly recommend you read our reliable source policy before deleting more sources on inappropriate grounds. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please also stop with the POV pushing at The Daily Caller. Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No completely disagree, if you allow this then you're lying people to put in sources that can potentially have no sense of validity... Digg396 (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean POV pushing? Digg396 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you know anything about the philosophy of information and journalism everything comes down to POV Digg396 (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

[edit]

By my count you're at 4 or 5 reverts for today. How about you self-revert your last one and come to article talk to discuss your concerns rather than edit warring. Because I'm not going to keep reverting - but I will file an edit warring report about your action if you keep it up. Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do the same to you then Digg396 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of POV nice to know that you identify as a socialist, favor of Marx's economics ... Digg396 (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

February 2025

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  EvergreenFir (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I did remove some sources, that was merely only a fraction of my general edits that had no other issues. The reasoning for the removal of those sources is due to the restrictions in which one can access them, which overall limits the validity of the claims made from them.
I'll also note that having someone like Simonm223 who has stayed up front that they are an extremely left-leaning individual in the political spectrum not provide any source of journalistic integrity when trying to make edits that are unbiased not leaning on any side of the political spectrum. Him making claims that my views were POV clearly shows his lack of understanding of journalistic philosophy and just thought as even the most left-leaning philosophers and modern day that stream from postmodernism define every form of logic is point of view.
I would also warn you that between to do such is only going to increase what it appears you are afraid to let rise and that is another open source encyclopedia that would allow edits from all sides of the political and thought spectrum.
In conclusion I believe that my edits are almost, if not completely valid valid. Digg396 (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]