User talk:Paul Bannon

March 2017
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Fake news, without citing a reliable source using an inline citation that clearly supports the material. The burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.  General Ization  Talk   16:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I cited a reliable source. Paul Bannon (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RSN, Breitbart is not a reliable source.  General Ization  Talk   16:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Per the real world, Brietbart is a reliable source. Paul Bannon (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Fake news.  General Ization  Talk   16:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Fake news 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. —C.Fred (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:General Ization does not seem capable of rational discussion and lives in some fantasy land incapable of distinguishing the reliable from unreliable. I'll revert his nonsense gibberish in 24 hours as advised. Thanks. Paul Bannon (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Just because three reverts in 24 hours is the bright-line rule, that doesn't mean you can't be blocked for persistent editing when you game the rules as you described above. I strongly suggest that you engage in discussion at the article's talk page before you attempt to revert the article again. —C.Fred (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, this edit is unacceptable. Editors should not make personal attacks against other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Unacceptable to whom? and since when is calling someone a CNN viewer an attack? An attack by definition is something harmful. If I had attacked, you would know about it! Perhaps you mistook my helpful advice guiding this person to qualified medical services for ASSISTANCE as an attack? If so, how you can figure that is beyond me. Paul Bannon (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Neil N  talk to me 17:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, any more personal attacks or edit warring and I will block you indefinitely. --Neil N  talk to me 17:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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:. 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. Neil N  talk to me 17:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Adding above note for who actually blocked you this time. --Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

<div class="notice" style="background:#ffe0e0; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height: 40px"> You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

As you seem to completely fail to understand what we consider a personal attack, I have blocked you indefinitely to prevent future occurrences from happening. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)