User talk:Brexit123

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Brexit123! Thank you for your contributions. I am Dan D. Ric and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Dan D. Ric (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit to Karuvarai Pookkal, which removed a red link. It is preferred to avoid piped links however, (see Wikipedia:Piped link) This can be done by simply moving the comma outside of the [[]]. Dan D. Ric (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit123, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Brexit123! 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 Osarius (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Brexit123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was just joking about very sorry. Brexit123 (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We're sorry too; that's why you drew only a short block. But you really should spend more time discussing your changes; you've never once used talk pages - rather, you just revert and leave a comment in the edit summary. --jpgordon ^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not using the talk page, but no one pointed out how my edits were wrong and without a reason given I could not correct them.Brexit123 (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Discretionary Sanctions Notification for Paraphilia and Transgender Issues

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 transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), 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.

EvergreenFir (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Hello, I'm CityOfSilver. I noticed that you recently removed content from Alt-right without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. City Of Silver 00:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Depression Quest

Another editor and I have reverted your edit at Depression Quest for the third time now.

You removed reliably sourced content without any explanation, and replaced it with unreliably sourced content which is unrelated to the rest of the section, and which appears to push a POV. I would suggest reading our guide to reliable sources on video-game-related articles, which makes clear that we don't mention user review scores. In fact, we generally don't include user scores anywhere on Wikipedia, because our articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If you have any questions about this edit, please bring it up at Talk:Depression Quest. Woodroar (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanction alerts

Since you've been editing on these topics, you should be aware of these discretionary sanctions as well:

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, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, 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.

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.

EvergreenFir (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Kat Blaque. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your edits are clear BLP violations as well as WP:OR. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gender policing. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Conspiracy theory. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Vandalism. If you feel this block is unjustified, you may contest it by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Brexit123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not vandalise any page after the previous block. If this is about the conspiracy theory edit, the subject has been called a conspiracy theory as it is a theory that involves people allegedly conspiring against non whites and I sourced the edit. The patriarchy bit I was going to delete as I mis-read a source none of the edits were meant to be vandalism.

Decline reason:

Call it "disruptive editing" if you prefer that description to "vandalism". You're well aware of what sources are considered unreliable but happily add unreliable sources when their content supports your point of view. We don't need that kind of POV-pushing. Huon (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(Non-administrator comment) Brexit123; please do not take what I am to say as anything in the realm of support for your editing philosophy, as I imagine, if I looked into it more deeply, i would probably not :) but, all things being equal, an indefinite block following from a 24-hour one- admittedly both for disruption- does seem rather 0--->Defcon five in sixty seconds. Indeed, the edits themselves hardly seem explicit vandalism; some kind of POV pushing at most- which of course, is be disruptive in itself- but to the level of an indef?

~~Mind you, @ReviewingAdmin, if I've missed an elephant in the room, feel free to disregard the above. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Thanks to Bbb23 not only finding it in the room, but also going elephant hunting, as it were. I withdraw my previously badly chosen remarks :) — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 19:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Brexit123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Firstly I would like to apologise as I thought that the source was reliable for the edit I only repeated the edit as I thought It was reverted for not having a source as I forgot to add it the first time. The edit was not supposed to be disruptive but it seems I made a mistake.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I've looked over your recent edits and I'm seeing an undercurrent of pernicious POV-pushing here, which is incompatible with Wikipedia's ethos of equality/neutrality/inclusiveness. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{unblock| I was unaware that my edits were POV pushing, I was only accused of it twice and never given a

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Brexit123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was unaware that my edits were POV pushing, I was only accused of it twice and never given a warning stating I would be banned. I am very sorry if it come across as POV pushing, I was just trying to help.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, as per below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

April 2017

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrators. This is now a CheckUser block.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]