User talk:PhilipCrouch

June 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Brussels Agreement (2013), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Thanks for making the change again with a source. It has to be reliable though, and for the type of edit you're making there should be a show of consensus - a Government of Serbia website isn't in this case. Please see WP:RS. This list may also help: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. If you cannot find a reliable source for this claim, perhaps try to add it to a controversy section stating that the Govt of Serbia labels it a self-proclaimed state, or similar. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddit warring on Brussels agreement (2013)

Your recent editing history 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. N.Hoxha (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Israel–Kosovo relations, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Kosovo and Serbia economic normalization agreements (2020). Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Notification - Eastern Europe

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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.

EvergreenFir (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this a final warning. If you change data on a page again without any explanation or citing a reliable source, you will be blocked from editing. Wikipedia works by collaboration and consensus. If you are uncommunicative, if you refrain from using the edit summary to explain your edits, if you fail to communicate or respond on talk pages when challenged, or if you engage in revert-warring, you won't last long here. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:PeterSwensen per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PhilipCrouch. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]