User talk:Pluvia

Your recent editing history at Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

July 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

Bishonen | talk 11:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Warning

I blinked in surprise when I saw you went right back to performing the exact same revert yet again, right after being blocked for edit warring. Please note the warning above: "… you can still be blocked for edit warring … should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly." That's exactly what your behavior does indicate. Seek dispute resolution if you're dissatisfied with the talkpage consensus. Don't revert Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority again without having consensus for such a revert, or you'll get a longer block. Bishonen | talk 19:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

A consensus hadn't been reached before, you literally just reverted the edit with no mention in the talk page. But yes I think I will seek dispute resolution. It's a shame that Wikipedia is censoring relevant, factual, neutral information, and I'm going to have to take it to this. Pluvia (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Scratch that, people needed "better" sources, sources have found. The talk page is open, feel free to comunicate there if you have any problems, but I will be reverting the censorship again in about 24 hours if nothing else comes up and, frankly, threats on my talk page isn't enough to get me to sit back and allow censorship of well sourced, 100% relevant, neutral information. Pluvia (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I literally reverted what? I haven't edited the article, apart from some minor vandalism reversion a year ago. You came very close to being blocked again, in fact you were blocked again, briefly (perhaps before JamesBWatson saw my warning).[1] I too thought of blocking, but I was assuming good faith that you simply didn't realize how disruptive it is to go right back to the very same non-consensus reversion after an edit warring block; that's why I merely warned you. Unfortunately, going by your comment above, you still don't realize it. It's now not merely your "behavior indicating that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly" — you say you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. What do you expect to gain by defying policy, really? You'll only hurt yourself, noone else. This hinges on nuances in Swedish-language sources (yes, I can read them) and it's a WP:BLP matter. You've been repeatedly referred to the biographies of living persons policy; have you read it? Your latest argument on talk has been answered, and I don't see you being close to convincing anybody, so far. Bishonen | talk 09:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I being blocked despite providing exactly what people are asking for. I'm providing timelines, well sourced court documents, BBC articles with a timeline, BBC articles without a timeline where it just point blank presents the information. Every single thing that has been asked I have presented. The article is about what he is wanted for, I'm providing that information and I now have 5 incredibly reliable sources to back it up. It's not random gossip. It's not bias information to shine him in a bad light. It's the accusations that he's wanted for, in an article about those very accusations. Every single thing that has been presented as a counter-argument I have countered immediately with a reliable source. It's just blatant censorship, I expected more from Wikipedia. Pluvia (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Assange

Hi there, as a recent editor of the page in question, you may wish to contribute to the discussions: ==Merge discussion for Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority ==

An article that you have been involved in editing, Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. prat (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC) prat (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]