User talk:Paul Bannon

March 2017[edit]

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 Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 16:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cited a reliable source. Paul Bannon (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RSN, Breitbart is not a reliable source. General Ization ^Talk 16:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the real world, Brietbart is a reliable source. Paul Bannon (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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—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. —C.Fred (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Also, this edit is unacceptable. Editors should not make personal attacks against other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, any more personal attacks or edit warring and I will block you indefinitely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding above note for Alexf who actually blocked you this time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Paul Bannon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Editors C. Fred, NeilN, Alexf and General Ization seem unable to differentiate a reliable from unreliable source.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Favonian (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you seem to completely fail to understand what we consider a personal attack, [1] I have blocked you indefinitely to prevent future occurrences from happening. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Paul Bannon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17813 was submitted on Mar 18, 2017 20:42:48. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Paul Bannon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17820 was submitted on Mar 19, 2017 17:26:56. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Paul Bannon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17822 was submitted on Mar 20, 2017 01:25:31. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]