User talk:FavorLaw

February 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Syria. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2011–2012 Syrian uprising with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Anti-Alawite Sentiment in the 2011-2012 Syrian Uprising. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Lord Roem (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Anti-Alawite Sentiment in the 2011-2012 Syrian Uprising. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Lord Roem (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are sopher99 under another tag, as obvious as a duck --FavorLaw (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my .... French... But your the duck, not me. Sopher99 (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Childish. I called you on solid grounds so you are doing the same. Very childish. --FavorLaw (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I called you on solid grounds that you a violating such wikiepdia guidelines, then you accuse me of being biased. Why don't you take some time to reflect on your statement about me. Sopher99 (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2011–2012 Syrian uprising. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.

Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Sopher99 (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011-2012 Syrian uprising[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2011–2012 Syrian uprising. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.

Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Sopher99 (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a question for you at WP:ANEW. I'll repeat it here, however: are you willing to self-revert your edit and wait for a consensus to form on the article's talk page before readding that sentence? I understand that it is irritating when your work is undone, but edit warring is disruptive and will not help you win the argument. Quite the contrary, actually: it only leads to blocks...

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 16:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]