User talk:Bleepsnap

February 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. 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.

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. VQuakr (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussing and gaining consensus
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Neutralitytalk 01:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Stop. Read Identifying reliable sources. Then read Advertising. Neutralitytalk 01:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Which part exactly are you taking issue with? talk


 * I've explained on the article talk page. You must immediately self-revert and discuss there. You can't unilaterally shoehorn this text when (1) an editor has expressed a policy-based objection and (2) no other editor supports your position. Again, please immediately self-revert. Neutralitytalk 03:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Affiliation
Do you have some sort of affiliation with MintPress News? I notice that is the only article that you edit. Neutralitytalk 03:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well? 'Bleepsnap'.78.144.80.158 (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)