User talk:CharltonChiltern

Agenda

You are exhibiting a distinct agenda. Doesn't really annoy me..does amuse me. Juan Riley (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on American Revolutionary War. 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. BMK (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability, reliable sources, and unsourced information

Please see our policy on WP:Verifiability, specifically:

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

You appear to have a habit of including unsourced or non-reliably sourced material, and then edit warring over it when other editors remove it. Please stop this behavior, as it is likely to get you blocked from editing in the future. The best way to insure that material you wish to add to an article is kept in the article is to provide citations from reliable sources to back it up - the more reliable, the more likely the information will not be removed. (Although also see WP:WEIGHT).

Although this appears to be a general behavioral problem, I am specifically referring to information about the removal of missiles from Italy that you added to Nikita Khruschev. This information requires a reliable source, which is why I removed it originally, and again when you reverted. (You would also do well to read and follow WP:BRD.) Please do not re-add the information without a reliable source. Thanks. BMK (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on American Revolution. 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. BMK (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nikita Khruschev. 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. BMK (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at German declaration of war against the United States (1941), 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. BMK (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at German declaration of war against the United States (1941). Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:14, 9 July 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not edit warring and I'm not "HarveyCarter" CharltonChiltern (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clear violation of the WP:3RR here as well as engaged in editing disputes in a number of places. You've been reverted under WP:DUCK but I will ask BMK to file an SPI. Mkdw ^talk 16:21, 9 July 2015 (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.

Are you User:ArthurLederer? . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NO! (CharltonChiltern (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]

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 adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not a sockpuppet or a banned editorCharltonChiltern (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're a checkuser confirmed sock puppet. PhilKnight (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2015 (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.