User talk:Couper2802

November 2019

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Joanna Cherry, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 22:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Joanna Cherry, you may be blocked from editing. Serols (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Couper2802, in addition to what Serols said above, please note that if you think that the content you have removed violates Wikipedia's policies, you can go to the article's talk page, Talk:Joanna Cherry and explain what it is about it that is inappropriate. But you must do that instead of removing the content again, and you must allow other editors to weigh in and discuss the issue. Do not revert unless there is a clear consensus in favour of doing so. If you keep reverting, you may be blocked for edit warring. Please read that information, which is very important. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 11:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Joanna Cherry. Please see the notes above. —Bsoyka ^{talk - hello!} 12:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Joanna Cherry shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. bonadea contributions talk 12:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Couper2802, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. I dream of Maple (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense we are several supporters of Joanna Cherry trying to remove malicious information from her page. The fact that wiki is letting users from USA and Sweden edit the page of an important UK politician during an election period must be of concern to the UK Electoral Commission

removing malicious info from Joanna Cherry’s page

There is currently a UK general election - malicious information is being posted on candidates pages. The information on Joanna Cherry QC’s page has been added by her political opponents. We have been trying to remove the offending information and as a result have been banned. Couper2802 (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are not banned. You were blocked. Who do you mean in "we"? Who else is involved? I dream of Maple (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]