User talk:Atrix20: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:26, 25 August 2019

Edit warring at The Daily Caller

Your recent editing history at The Daily Caller 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you don't continue to push your deletion. It is not a violation of NPOV to include mention in the lead of important content in the body of the article. It would be a violation of WP:LEAD and NPOV to fail to do so. The proper mention has been restored by User:Snooganssnoogans. Please don't edit war over it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to push it; the material is already in the body, and the other similar outlets that have also had things deemed objectionable don't have their ledes marked by them. Why the DC? Because it's a non-progressive outlet? You do kind of have Obama on your user page, thus you don't have a lack of bias.Atrix20 (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 16:13, 25 August 2019 edit AnomieBOT (talk \| contribs) Bots 6,530,263 edits m Substing templates: {{3rr}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:26, 25 August 2019 edit undo Atrix20 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 2,781 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 6:		Line 6:

	: I hope that you don't continue to push your deletion. It is not a violation of NPOV to include mention in the lead of important content in the body of the article. It would be a violation of [[WP:LEAD]] and NPOV to fail to do so. The proper mention has been restored by [[User:Snooganssnoogans]]. Please don't edit war over it. -- [[User:BullRangifer\|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer\|talk]]) 15:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)		: I hope that you don't continue to push your deletion. It is not a violation of NPOV to include mention in the lead of important content in the body of the article. It would be a violation of [[WP:LEAD]] and NPOV to fail to do so. The proper mention has been restored by [[User:Snooganssnoogans]]. Please don't edit war over it. -- [[User:BullRangifer\|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer\|talk]]) 15:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

			::I will continue to push it; the material is already in the body, and the other similar outlets that have also had things deemed objectionable don't have their ledes marked by them. Why the DC? Because it's a non-progressive outlet? You do kind of have Obama on your user page, thus you don't have a lack of bias.[[User:Atrix20\|Atrix20]] ([[User talk:Atrix20#top\|talk]]) 16:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)