User talk:Wikipedian FW

Welcome!
Hello, Wikipedian FW, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Maram Susli, seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see: If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia: I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Policy on neutral point of view
 * Guideline on spam
 * Guideline on external links
 * Guideline on conflict of interest
 * FAQ for Organizations
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and how to develop articles
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * Article wizard for creating new articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

September 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Maram Susli. 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. —C.Fred (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As a rule, any material placed on Google Drive is not going to be a reliable source, because there's too much risk of alteration. That's why we prefer sources that have been published somewhere. —C.Fred (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Wikipedian FW, but you don't seem to get it at all. I personally don't care if your YouTube links are reliable or not (they likely are not); what I care about is that they are YouTube links with videos by your subject and that looks like spamming. That Daily Beast article, I didn't remove it because, duh, it's not a YouTube link. Besides, it's not an opinion piece: it's a journalistic article. You may not like that your subject is called a troll for Assad--well, that's too bad. But this kind of edit warring, and this lack of knowledge and judgment in a series of POV-pushing edits, is only going to lead to one thing: a block. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)