User talk:2600:8800:FF04:C00:2169:C266:D9F6:9F08

May 2017

Your recent editing history at Portal:Current events/2017 May 16 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. ansh666 17:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

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.

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Black Kite: you have currently blocked me for "disruptive editing" - I don't agree with that but its yours to do - you have also blocked User:Theguide42 as you state here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=780702506&oldid=780702279 - I have never attempted to sock in my 7 years with wiki - I do instead always use an anon ip which keeps getting changed by my isp carrier but not by me (my own opinion is that everyone should be forced to either give their actual REAL name on wiki to edit or just use an anon ip which can be easily trace routed to see by any editor (without an elaborate sock investigation) if I am one and the same as some other anon ip) - anyways, I tell you under complete honesty I AM NOT Theguide42 - you are in error to believe that--2600:8800:FF04:C00:2169:C266:D9F6:9F08 (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lasersharp: I tried to assist you against a well known edit warrior - pity me I got a block but clearly Volunteer Marek who is a massive repeat offender of edit warring and has been repeatedly been blocked for such did not--2600:8800:FF04:C00:2169:C266:D9F6:9F08 (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: how is it that Volunteer Marek who is a massive repeat offender of edit warring and has been repeatedly been blocked for such did not--2600:8800:FF04:C00:2169:C266:D9F6:9F08 (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

If you've been here for seven years then you should know a lot better than to restore controversial BLP or American Politics content (especially in a high profile area) without getting consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: the blp thing was someone else's item - I could care less about it - the editor who put it there, Lazorsharp, said it was not a blp issue - he has a very long history on wiki with no blocks - I assumed he knew what he was talking about with respect to blp in this case - on the other hand Volunteer Marek has a long history of biased edit warring - I thought "here he goes again with the edit warring I will be ok some admin will see that" but apparently not - as for controversy on American politics - NO WHERE IN ANY TRUMP TWEET DO I SEE TRUMP SAY HE GAVE OUT "highly classified" anything or just the exact word "classified" - IT DOES NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE - its a fiction - a fiction being pushed by bias pushers like Volunteer Marek--2600:8800:FF04:C00:2169:C266:D9F6:9F08 (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You take responsibility for your own edits. You restored the BLP material multiple times, along with fighting over the Trump thing, so you were blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

---