70.209.197.196

You have violated these sanctions

This was mentioned at the top of the editor while you were editing Unite the Right rally. I would advise self-reverting and discussing the issue on talk:Unite the Right rally. Or you may risk being wp:blocked Jim1138 (talk) 07:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken, I have not violated any sanctions. I would advise turning off your bot because it is prone to error. 70.209.197.196 (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Jim1138 is not a bot. He is patrolling the recent changes log and has concerns regarding the content you're removing from Unite the Right rally (which share the same concerns that I have). Your edits here (which are originally explained in your edit summary with this edit as [removing] "false information, POV language, and irrelevant information") - also remove references from NBC News, LA Times, and Newsweek. Why are you removing these references from the article? You also added "On October 9, 2017, after verifying the facts of the incident" - why did you add the phrase after verifying the facts after removing referenced content there? Do any sources state this? This appears to be worded in a way that could be interpreted as a viewpoint. What if people disagree and don't believe that anything was "verified"? Do you see the concerns that your edits are introducing here? I also see that a report has been filed against you at the edit warring noticeboard -- you need to stop and discuss things. Do not continue to revert things back-and-fourth. This article may also be construed as being under discretionary sanctions due to being associated with United States politics, which allows for administrators (such as myself) to impose sanctions as they see fit in order to maintain an acceptable and collaborative editing environment for Wikipedia's most contentious and strife-torn articles. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

You say "You also added "On October 9, 2017, after verifying the facts of the incident" - why did you add the phrase after verifying the facts after removing referenced content there? Do any sources state this? This appears to be worded in a way that could be interpreted as a viewpoint." Here is the relevant text from the Vice News article that was sourced by the user claiming that the police were not involved in the decision to sign off on the warrant (https://news.vice.com/story/how-white-supremacists-got-the-black-man-they-brutally-beat-charged-with-felony):

“The victim went to the Magistrate’s office, presented the facts of what occurred, and attempted to obtain a warrant,” Charlottesville police said in a statement on Tuesday. “The magistrate requested that a detective respond and verify these facts. A Charlottesville Police Department detective did respond, verified the fact, and a warrant for Unlawful Wounding (VA Code 18.2-51) was issued.”

So, yes, the sources did say that the facts were verified by the police detective. 70.209.197.196 (talk) 09:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:70.209.197.196 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: ). Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Unite the Right rally. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  User:Ritchie333 (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

"My edits that have been reverted were correct" is a cliche - when you have been reverted on an article such as this, you need to stop reverting immediately and then discuss. Other editors can see your talk page thread now and will look at it while you are blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I justified how my edits were correct, you dishonest putz.70.209.197.196 (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

---