User talk:AntiCauliflower92

AntiCauliflower92, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi AntiCauliflower92! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Bonehill

If you believe the article Joshua Bonehill should be deleted you have one option, articles for deletion (WP:AFD). The instructions on how to nominate an article using WP:AFD is at WP:AFDHOWTO. There are no valid speedy deletion criteria that can be used to delete the article and the one chance at using proposed deletion has been used. Do not readd any other deletion process to the article. -- GB fan 19:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delusions

I'm afraid you suffer from as many delusions as him if you think I write in favour of Joshua Bonehill, seeing as in the article I've included references to his drunken shenanigans, hoaxes and criminal record, as well as deleting his claim that he is "hotly tipped to be the next BNP youth leader" and his edit to Neo-nationalism which said that he invented the ideology. Also, editing Britain First has fuck all to do with the price of eggs, as my edits there include their failures, embarrassments and opposition. It's strange because earlier this week I was portrayed by another user as "left-leaning" because I preferred a BBC source over a Fox News source on the same story. It's amazing that aiming for neutrality gets me shot by both sides. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert of my revert

Can you please tell me where I edited Joshua Bonehill as you stated in your edit summary. -- GB fan 02:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You never explained why the infobox that was added to the article does not belong. So why did you remove it? -- GB fan 02:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox was added by myself and I beleive it has a place. He has a history of vandalising the article. It won't be long until his account is banned and the article permanently protected Jooner29 (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At no point have I vandalised this article. I have edited some hyperbole and non-neutral POV language to more accurately reflect the information contained in the cited sources. The user Jooner29, who is also the subject of the article, keeps reverting the edits without giving valid reasons. AntiCauliflower92 (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask again and my questions seem to have gotten lost. Can you please tell me where I edited Joshua Bonehill without explaining my edits as you stated in your edit summary. Also, you never explained why the infobox that was added to the article does not belong. So why did you remove the infobox? -- GB fan 17:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Your recent editing history at Joshua Bonehill 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. -- GB fan 18:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]