User talk:FactChecked1

Hello.

Hello. I see your block expired, and you removed all the warning templates posted to your page. That's fine, you're free to do that if you wish, but it's understood to mean that you have read and understood all of them. Resuming edit warring right after your block expires will almost certainly lead to another, much longer block. I've started a talk page discussion at Talk:Jacob Rees-Mogg#Popularity, per your request. I think you can see what I'm getting at here, right? Calling my edits "vandalism" is probably not the right tack, either.

When you make posts like this one, encouraging an anonymous editor who you agree with to "continuously edit" the Identitarian page, it sure seems like you're not here to build an encyclopedia. Asking someone else to edit war on your behalf is not acceptable. I would've thought that was obvious, but see WP:CANVAS and WP:MEAT if you don't believe me. If you want to discuss edits, let's do that on the article's talk pages. Grayfell (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Identitarian movement. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Blanking warnings isn't going to help. Meters (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your block for violating WP:3RR on the article just expired and you start edit warring again? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm trying to add context to a page yet continuously keep getting reported, please see my last edits to ensure there's no malpractice on my behalf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactChecked1 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you continuously get reverted, that's a sign you need to stop editing the article and wait until there's consensus on the talk page about what to do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The largest wall of text on the talk page is written by me attempting to stop some contributors removing pertinent information. A user by the name of Greyfell then went on all articles I've previously contributed to and reverted them. FactChecked1 (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And other editors replied to you on the talk page, disagreeing with your edits. Did you miss the part about waiting from what I wrote above? Discussion may take days or even weeks and at the end, you might not get the result you want. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Please carefully review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Neither Breitbart nor Freewestmedia.com are reliable. Additionally, please summarize reliable sources neutrally without the use of WP:EDITORIALIZING language. Grayfell (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart is used to link the relevant information that appears on a government website. Wikipedia blacklists the direct website so it's the only way it can be done. According to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources this is an acceptable reason. --FactChecked1 (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]