User talk:174.31.173.41

Your recent editing history 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. El_C 02:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I would like to apologize, I didn't notice the log below the Rupert Murdoch page, but I do feel that what appears on Google from Wikipedia should depict current involvements, and more importantly something the general public would identify easily. I'm not going to say I wasn't warring in a way, a blind war if you will, but I wasn't aware of your messages.

Sure, but please adhere to policy. You're the one who is introducing new content that is being objected to, so the onus is on you to gain consensus for your changes on the article talk page — not force them in by fiat. Thanks. El_C 05:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

It does seem that it is only an individual who objects not a body as I can tell, and seeing as the AG met with the guy a clear representation of what he runs would be honest. Otherwise it seems like trying to be deceptive by providing an agency that the average person won't know.

I'm not sure what you mean. That opening sentence has been in place for a long time before you changed it today, edit warring your new changes over and over again without discussion. El_C 05:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

And what I was getting at is updated more relevant info could be in that intro that shows on Google, I get it not my call. But I know if very few people who know if news Corp let alone their subsidiaries, adding something commonly known has no harm. Also how do you find the talk page on mobile.

Relevance is in the eye of the beholder and is ought to be decided by consensus, not fiat. At any case, all the information is already there — just not in the opening sentence. The talk page could found here. El_C 05:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the link but I would like to find talk pages on other pages in the future. It's been since middle School that I did edits at all which was at a time that things were more chaotic, but I would like to abide proper steps. But in relevance, the guy that just had a meeting with Attorney General Barr right before one of the few journalist, that would be critical to events happening, quit with an NCC, might be worth mentioning what news outlet he has control over, Without making it a digging game.

I don't know what to tell you — I'm able to find article and other talk pages on mobile devices just fine. *** That's an argument you are free to advance on the article talk page, but my view is that the opening sentence, itself, should remain as concise as possible. El_C 06:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I have initiated a discussion about your addition to the opening sentence here. El_C 06:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I was meaning where is the link on the page itself. The issue itself I can understand taking place on the talk page. Though it's still a concern of removing responsibility for coverage of a network he's a Chairman and defacto owner of by means of the lesser known parent company. Better stated would be not providing current activities, removing is an incorrect phrasing.

---