User talk:Kmita100

October 2018

Hello, I'm Prolog. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Censorship, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Prolog (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Gamaliel. 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 Censorship seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Censorship. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Prolog (talk) 04:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history 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. Prolog (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

Your "sources" don't say what you claim that they say. In fact, four out of five don't even mention the words "censor" or "censorship" anywhere in the article. The BCC ref only says that "the challenge for [Twitter] has been to grapple with offensive content while not being seen to censor legitimate political views." You are inserting your personal commentary and following it with numerous fictitious references. If you disagree with my assessment, provide quotations from those sources that directly support the material you are adding. Prolog (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]