User talk:Isabellabean

February 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Mint Press News has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Mint Press News was changed by Isabellabean (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.915575 on 2014-02-04T03:24:51+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Isabellabean, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! VQuakr (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Your signature contains a typo (an extra "s") which prevents it from linking to your user or talk pages. Can you please fix it? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isabellabean, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Isabellabean! 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! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 22:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Mint Press News. 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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Your latest edits to the article represent a return to the same edit warring for which you were just blocked. Normal practice is for block length to increase with each violation; please consider self-reverting and instead resuming discussion on the article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have not edited a talk page since your last block for edit warring. Your next article edit that constitutes a revert (re-inserts your own content or removes someone else's) without discussion first will result in another trip to WP:EW/N. VQuakr (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warring at Mint Press News

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring, as you did at Mint Press News. 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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

Please note that the content which is the subject of the edit war is related to the Syrian Civil War and so are covered by general sanctions authorised by the community. Before making any further edits please read the linked page and ensure you are aware of the sanctions in place. This should be considered the official warning required by those sanctions. Please note, that if you continue to edit war you may be sanctioned further, such as through topic or article bans or stricter revert restrictions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPA at mintPRessTV

hello SPA - are you sure he won the award? look at your ref and it says he got a mention. Sayerslle (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the OLD news is the only sodding reason this execrable mintpress iran propaganda rubbish is widely known . capisce? Sayerslle (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are now subject to a topic ban from Mint Press News

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic ban from Mint Press News anywhere on Wikipedia for three months

You have been sanctioned due to continued edit warring on that article both directly and indirectly related to the Syrian Civil War.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the community sanctions authorised for this topic area. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here except to the administrators' noticeboard rather than the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 9 July 2014 for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Isabellabean. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]