User talk:Dreemail

February 2014

Hello, I'm Dwpaul. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Chemtrail conspiracy theory seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. In addition, links to YouTube videos are highly discouraged and never introduced within the body of an article. Dwpaul ^Talk 22:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made it neutral. Leave it.

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote conspiracy theories as fact. Acroterion (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Chemtrail conspiracy theory with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. NicatronTg (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. vzaak 00:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You pushed a link to some conspiracy theorist talk in an article. Clearly it was going to be reverted as abject nonsense. There is a talk page on these articles for a reason, but if you are going to spew conspiracy theories don't, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sad thing is that if you had simply put this under External links at the bottom of the article (the only place, if anywhere, a link to a Youtube video belongs) with a benign description, instead of POV-pushing it just under the lede, it might have stayed around a little longer. I tried to give you a not-so-subtle hint about this in the very first warning. No chance of that now, since there are many eyes on the article. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]