User talk:Factfindingmission

March 2018
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. Neil N  talk to me 17:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

--Neil N  talk to me 17:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome
72bikers (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Last warning
If you do not start using talk pages to civilly discuss your changes with other editors I will topic ban you. --Neil N  talk to me 23:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

That's too rich. I added content about S&W's earnings and revenue. That requires a "civil discussion with other editors"? Glad to know that WP is now ruled by unreasonable individuals pushing their own agendas. As I've mentioned, this will make a good story. Factfindingmission (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If other editors don't agree with your change yes, it requires discussion without you explicitly calling them shills for S&W. That's as unacceptable as you being called a "paid propagandist for Never Again MSD". --Neil N  talk to me 22:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Right - it would be as unacceptable as me asking: can we trust the judgement of individuals who are so antisocial and unoccupied that they can spend 6 or 7 hours editing Wikipedia pages each day?

Factfindingmission, you were warned about edit warring by. As soon as you returned to Wikipedia you restored material in question without a talk page discussion or consensus here []. Please self revert and move to the talk page discussion or I will report this to AN3 as a continuation of your warning here []. Springee (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It also appears you returned to edit war here as well []. Again, would suggest a self revert and talk page discussion. Springee (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

, please review this latest edit summary in context of your warning above []. Springee (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

3RR discussion related to this account
Discussion here []

March 2018
Your recent editing history at Smith & Wesson 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.It doesn't matter if you are "right" or not, take it to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
First and only warning: read WP:TBAN. Your postings are breaking your topic ban. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You can appeal your topic ban by following the instructions in the box. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Factfindingmission, to be clear, your talk page comment here [] was a violation of your topic ban. It also again contained accusations that against myself and/or another editor suggesting you don't understand at part of the reason implemented the block. Accusing editors of having a COI without is a violation of WP:AGF as well as one of the reasons for your topic ban. Please do not make the accusation again. Springee (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

DS edits
The DS page should be left alone - As far as I'm aware admins can only edit it, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 19:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2019
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you 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.

Factfindingmission, you added a paragraph to Kirstjen Nielsen about “recent reporting on Nielsen’s resignation and future employability”. I removed it because it was “sourced to Twitter and opinion pieces”. You reverted as “vandalism” and restored the paragraph. Another editor removed it, you restored it again and added an additional source. Still another editor removed it. That makes three editors who have removed it. At this point you are at the WP:3RR limit and are in danger of being blocked for edit warring if you do it again. It is clear you do NOT have consensus to include anything about this, and you must discuss it at the talk page and gain agreement before adding it again. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)