User talk:GenoV84/2018/September

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sweden Democrats, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

AIV

Thank you for making a report about Snubblarn (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, and the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. It looks like this is primarily a content dispute. Please engage with Snubblarn either on the article talk page in the section Snubblarn started or on Snubblarn's talk page. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 12:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Do not refer to edits that clearly aren't vandalism by Wikipedia's definition as vandalism. The edits on Sweden Democrats are a content dispute, as can also be seen in the section above this, not vandalism. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Your recent editing history at Sweden Democrats 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. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: I have already requested protection restrictions to another admin for that page.--GenoV84 (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

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. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 03:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello GenoV84. You seem to have broken WP:3RR by making four reverts at Criticism of Muhammad starting at 03:09 on 22 September. Please reply to the noticeboard complaint to explain why you shouldn't be blocked for edit warring. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Criticism of Muhammad. 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 ~~~~}}.

You continued to restore your preferred material after you were warned not not to do so. You have never posted on the article talk page, much less obtained a consensus there. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)