User talk:HMWikiSoldier

HMWikiSoldier, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi HMWikiSoldier! 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 experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hi HMWikiSoldier! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at United Kingdom that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! - HMWikiSoldier

Welcome!

Hi HMWikiSoldier! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Jorm (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DS Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Jorm (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bony-eared assfish. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. The diff being [1]. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Conservative Party (UK) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ralbegen (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD

Please read WP:BRD; the solution when there's a dispute isn't to edit war. We can achieve talk page consensus first, the world won't end. Also please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. — Czello 19:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, we should not edit war. Please reply to my follow up on the talk page. Thank you

Then... why are you? — Czello 19:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But also why are you? I implemented an edit which reflects a best-fit to the consensus from the talk page. You were the one who reverted it to your preferred edit without consensus. Please discuss with me kindly on the talk page.

As I've explained to you more than once, when there's a dispute the normal thing to do is revert to the status quo while consensus is achieved. Please, read WP:BRD. — Czello 19:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 'status quo' went against the consensus.

There was no consensus on the talk page: it was clearly in dispute (not to mention it was a thread from over a year ago). Did you not notice the more recent thread underneath which has a consensus in favour of "centre-right"? — Czello 19:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right in that section there is less consensus leaning one way or another, however, when the two sections are combined there is a general consensus that can be found which resembles the edits I have made a lot more than the previous so called 'status quo'.

This is very much your own opinion and isn't how WP:CONSENSUS works. The debate between "centre-right" vs "centre-right to right wing" can't end up with you concluding the latter is consensus when you, yourself, say there is no consensus. Again, one of the more recent sections underneath explicitly has outlined a consensus for "centre-right". — Czello 19:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus for the previously accepted 'status quo'. Therefore, according to your own logic the only consensus is no consensus which means we must leave the ideology and position sections from the infobox blank, as has occurred on other political party pages.

Did you not see this discussion, where the consensus is clearly for centre-right? — Czello 19:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Czello 20:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]