User talk:Chicagoismyhomie

Welcome!

Hello, Chicagoismyhomie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! VQuakr (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks VQakr, much appreciated. chicagoismyhomie (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chicagoismyhomie, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Chicagoismyhomie! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mint Press News

Greetings, thanks for your message on my talk page. First off, please stop reverting the article! What you are doing is called edit warring, and it is not a productive means of attempting to improve the article. As you might imagine, conflict is a natural part of collaborative editing and it is routine to stick with the status quo while resolving disagreements. See the essay on the "bold, revert, discuss" cycle for a longer explanation. VQuakr (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Mint Press News. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I agree that we should come to a consesus as the other editor who is making changes is only referencing negative and attack articles and I do not feel that is fair for providing a "neutral" perspective. I appreciate you moderating this. How do we come to a consensus? chicagoismyhomie (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mint Press News may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

reporter and author of the Mint Press News piece."<ref>[[Brown Moses Blog]], 20 September 2013, [http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/statement-by-dale-gavlak-on-mint-press.html?m=1</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mint Press News. 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. VQuakr (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]