User talk:Bhdave

Welcome!
Hello, Bhdave, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Fareed Zakaria 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: 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 Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Grayfell (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 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

December 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to David Gergen, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017
Hello, I'm Drewmutt. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Serge F. Kovaleski, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Drewmutt (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to David Gergen. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. ''Citing sources from 2008 for conclusions about 2017 is original research, which is not appropriate on Wikipedia. Discuss proposed changes on the article's talk page before reverting again.'' Grayfell (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2017 (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 Carl Bernstein, you may be blocked from editing. ''Propose controversial changes on the article's talk page, and present content neutrally in proportion to due weight according to reliable sources. Do not edit war.'' Grayfell (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Carl Bernstein. See also WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Grayfell (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Carl Bernstein. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

My updates are being undone with a keystroke because the content is not to the liking of an anonymous editor. The content is 100% accurate and uses quotations by the subject. If you do not like the fact that Carl Bernstein reported a bogus story, or that he made foolish comments in an attempt to bully citics, that is not your responsibility. He claimed that his reporting was excellent. Repeatedly. It is FACT, not opinion. As this story is a major story which dominated CNN with 24 hour coverage, involved the presidency and foreign countries and the intelligence community, it is worthy of mention.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

3 revert rule
Your recent editing history at Carl Bernstein 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&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.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

If you continue to violate Wikipedia's policies regarding neutrality and biographies of living persons by reinserting contentious disputed material about living subjects without first obtaining consensus on the related article talk page, you will be blocked from editing. You clearly have an agenda to push a specific viewpoint into a specific set of articles regardless of our policies. You need to stop and review the many notices you have been given here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit-warring across multiple articles to add and restore contentious material to WP:BLPs. 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:. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The content is not CONTENTIOUS. It is 100% factual, using quotes of the subjects. Wikipedia is apparently preventing current, easily validated information from being presented, by spinning this as "contentious" "living person", opinion. Quoting the principals is NOT opinion. Bernstein proudly claims that this is a major news story, that he worked hard to develop, and he believes that the underlying "russia report" is real. So, yes, he is making a fool of himself and, yes, he was caught reporting "fake news". Wikipedia should not protect him by suppressing accurate content. Further, my content was active for 2 weeks before someone with an anonymous handle deleted my content with a keystroke, saying the content was "out of scope". How can content related to a reporter's reporting be outside of scope under the category of reporting? He was on CNN for days promoting this story and attacking his critics. It is news, and you know it
 * And ↑this↑ is precisely why you are blocked. You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia and its policies. If you continue to edit disruptively and use Wikipedia as a soapbox to push your POV, you will likely find yourself blocked for a much longer duration. If you also continue to use this talk page to further your BLP violations and soapboxing, access to the page will be revoked for the duration of the block. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)