By the same criteria you use, it could be said that there is no reason to include in the first place the "non-notable" SPLC source and their criticism/labeling of NPI. If the SPLC's criticism of NPI is valid, then so is TNO's criticism of the SPLC. Pick one, you can't have it both ways.
Hi. I reverted this edit that you and User:Balance3241 keep adding to the page. I assume the other account is also you, given the similar names and the fact that the two accounts seem interested only in that particular edit. Please be aware that using multiple accounts is disfavored, and using multiple accounts for an improper purpose (such as edit warring) will get you sanctioned. Dyrnych ( talk) 17:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't fully know why you are still going on about this. You are lighting up my feed like the switchboards after a major event. Make yourself familiar with WP:EW. At this point, it doesn't matter if you are right, you will be banned if you further edit the page for the near future. I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with WP policies and guidelines before you continue. Jab843 ( talk) 20:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
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.
Dyrnych (
talk)
20:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at
National Policy Institute, you may be
blocked from editing. Thank you.
Justeditingtoday (
talk)
03:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at
National Policy Institute.
Justeditingtoday (
talk)
03:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.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.
By the same criteria you use, it could be said that there is no reason to include in the first place the "non-notable" SPLC source and their criticism/labeling of NPI. If the SPLC's criticism of NPI is valid, then so is TNO's criticism of the SPLC. Pick one, you can't have it both ways.
Hi. I reverted this edit that you and User:Balance3241 keep adding to the page. I assume the other account is also you, given the similar names and the fact that the two accounts seem interested only in that particular edit. Please be aware that using multiple accounts is disfavored, and using multiple accounts for an improper purpose (such as edit warring) will get you sanctioned. Dyrnych ( talk) 17:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't fully know why you are still going on about this. You are lighting up my feed like the switchboards after a major event. Make yourself familiar with WP:EW. At this point, it doesn't matter if you are right, you will be banned if you further edit the page for the near future. I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with WP policies and guidelines before you continue. Jab843 ( talk) 20:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
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.
Dyrnych (
talk)
20:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at
National Policy Institute, you may be
blocked from editing. Thank you.
Justeditingtoday (
talk)
03:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at
National Policy Institute.
Justeditingtoday (
talk)
03:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.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.