HervéDuchat

Welcome!

Hello, HervéDuchat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Demagouge does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  ^{Babymissfortune} 15:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

HervéDuchat, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi HervéDuchat! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 your 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. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Demagogue, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. When we have a WP:RFC open on a talk page which discusses potential changes to an article, we leave the text of the article alone. This is especially important when WP's WP:BLP policy is involved. Do not add the Trump material until the RFC is closed. – S. Rich (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Demagogue. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{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.  Favonian (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Demagogue

Hi there. It is not imoho a personal attack to point out the fact that you have a single focus to your contribution history here and have even been blocked for attempting to edit war disputed content into the article. Those facts are helpful to weight up your comments and votes, although it is not a vote. We even have a template that I can add to your comments, the singlepurposeaccount template - Demagogue - — HervéDuchat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - I think you are over-cautiously interpreting the personal attack page, however, if it is upsetting you, and I don't want that at all, and in the spirit of goodwill I will strike out my comment about your single focus on Trump. regards Govindaharihari (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on my Talk page. As per WP:PA policy, references to editing history should be limited to an editor's Talk page or else as part of a complaint process, and should not be placed on article Talk pages. I do not have an extensive edit history, even though I have actively participated in the Talk page discussions for the Demagogue article. My actual number of edits on that article is quite small, editing war dispute notwithstanding, and not that many more than the number of edits on the Diplomatic Immunity article, which is, of course, not about Trump. So my account cannot rightly be referred to under the singlepurposeaccount template. If you disagree with the content of my edits or the positions I espouse in discussions, please feel free to comment on the merits of that content and/or positions, supplying sources and a rationale (outside of my editing history). I do appreciate the removal of your comment about my alleged single focus/editing history from the article's Talk page. Thanks, again.HervéDuchat (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)