User talk:146.198.131.163

October 2017

Hello, I'm Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. I noticed that you made a change to an article, For Britain, 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. — fortunavelut luna 13:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at For Britain. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, 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 Wikipedia. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. — fortunavelut luna 13:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:146.198.131.163 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: ). Thank you. — fortunavelut luna 14:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at For Britain. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

146.198.131.163 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, anyone reading this? I am new here. I was blocked for making what I believe to be a very reasonable edit to the For Britain wiki page (which scandalously describes the party as "far right"). I tried to add a reference as requested but was then blocked. This is very draconian. The page also seems protected now against any changes. Is this the new world order? Special:Contributions/146.198.131.163

Decline reason:

You were not blocked "for making what [you] believe to be a very reasonable edit", you were blocked for edit-warring, which you continued to do after being informed of Wikipedia's policy on edit-warring. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

146.198.131.163 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You claim I was involved in edit warring, but you can see from my last attempted edit that I was trying to add a reference. So it is unfair to block me. In future, I will seek to consensus before editing. Sorry I am new here and did not know the procedure. 146.198.131.163 (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were unquestionably edit-warring on this article; it is possible that you are not clear as to what the phrase "edit-warring" actually means. Your short-duration (only 24 hours) block will give you just enough time to find out. For the record, For Britain is inarguably a right-wing political party within the definition of the term You are wholly entitled to your beliefs, but you are not entitled to air them here. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hello Anthony Bradbury thank you for your message. You say "For Britain is inarguably a right-wing political party within the definition of the term". I say it does not meet the Wikipedia definition of far right. It is only anti-Islam. The leader Anne Marie Waters is a former labour candidate. She worked in family law and saw the evils of Islam from that side. This is not just my personal opinion. You need to do some research.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.