User talk:Bruno SanMartino

Ways to improve Kanab movie fort
Hi, I'm Nick Moyes. Bruno SanMartino, thanks for creating Kanab movie fort!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Going online, this location may well meet our notability criteria. But you need to put work in to add sources, categories and content. This is not something you should leave to other editors to do for you!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Nick Moyes (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
Hello, I'm Muboshgu. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Hillary Clinton email controversy. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. funplussmart (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2018 (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 Hillary Clinton email controversy. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Hillary Clinton email controversy 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Hillary Clinton email controversy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

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&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. Beasting123 (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. I didn't undo anyone's work. They undid mine. Now with the block I can't engage in the talk I was asked to do. Bruno SanMartino (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You didn't engage in talk when you had the chance. You edit warred. You were warned sufficiently. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. My attempt at talk is in your very own talk page. Stop lying. Bruno SanMartino (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * In your edit summary: "...BTW - USA Today, Boston Herald, International Business Times (part of NY Times) and Obama's own ICIG are anything but "poor sources" or "fringe nonsense.""


 * The problem is that all these stories started with The Daily Caller, which is not a RS. Period. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Nope. Don't be blinded by your biases. Follow the sources.  Watch the IGIC's video.   The news started with the  Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG), Charles McCullough III - an Obama Appointee in 2011.  He is the Inspector General over 17 different intelligence agencies.  He came forward way back in November of last year. [see] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/27/blowback-clinton-campaign-planned-to-fire-me-over-email-probe-obama-intel-watchdog-says.html  The Daily Caller story (that I didn't cite) didn't appear until August 2018 - a full 9 months later. Bruno SanMartino (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My biases are formed by RS, so show me documentation and I'll consider changing my mind. That link says nothing about China or hacking. Am I missing something, other than he's a discredited person? (Fox likes him, so that's telling.) The DC story is new, and been debunked. Her server was never hacked. OTOH, the DNC's server was hacked (also Podesta's emails), and those emails leaked. Obviously any emails she had sent that they had received, could also be copied and leaked. But back to the "China hacked Clinton's server" story from DC. Any confirmation from RS? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting you are biased. As for the rest, it makes no sense at all since, I say again, I DID NOT USE DAILY CALLER, as a source. Don't allow your blindness to bias you. Instead, I used the Boston Herald a paper that has received EIGHT Pulitzer Prizes. But let's examine my other sources:

Barack Obama's pick for the Intelligence Community's Inspector General - a left leaning source USA Today Newspaper - another left leaning source The International Business Times - affiliated with the Newsweek yet another left wing source.

Given your admitted bias, you should be elated with my sources. Why aren't you?

November 2018
I reverted your edit to Bill Nelson because it inserted into a paragraph an issue that is not covered by the source cited for that paragraph. Doing so is misleading, and may be considered disruptive. - Donald Albury 19:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Further unsourced edits were removed from the Noel Coward article, that were also inappropriately places in the WP:LEAD section. Please review WP:V, which describes our key content policy on sourcing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)