User talk:207.151.155.14

October 2016
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Storks (film). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Storks (film), you may be blocked from editing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If some reliable secondary source (WP:IRS) were to make an issue about this then maybe something about a content warning being issued could be added to the article. Absent that any issues you may have about the film are just your issues and nothing more. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Storks (film). Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Storks (film) was changed by 207.151.155.14 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.876841 on 2016-10-04T19:18:30+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Storks (film) 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 article's 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Widr (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.