User talk:Majorbluff99

Welcome!

Hello, Majorbluff99, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions 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, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here 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 Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! VQuakr (talk) 06:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

November 2013
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors&#32; according to your reverts at Mint Press News. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, 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. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply to reverting
Thanks VQuaker. I have found new information regarding the syria report and the MPN websie updated it's about us page, which I have now added. It's more relevant. The Brauer article consists of several inaccuracies as it has the launch date incorrect, and editor's age is incorrect, the relationship to the business adviser reference is inaccurate, therefor, I have deemed that article as unreliable. The developing information to Dale Gavlak's involvement in the article was not originally added as she already admitted to writing the story. And, Global Research writes a report about the "letter to editors" by MPN editor Ms. Muhawesh, which is necessary as showing the entire story and reflects the pressure that was placed on the writers of the report. With this new developing informatin, all other information about Dale's involvement is now irrelevant. Thank you. Majorbluff99 24 November 2013

Talkback
VQuakr (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts
VQuakr (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)