User talk:Féd Poppy

Previous accounts

Are you by any chance Loceaul & wheya (talk · contribs)/Trumpnewtq (talk · contribs)/Paul Itiqu Fedtr (talk · contribs)? If so, why do you keep creating new accounts? Number 5 7 16:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Swiss elections

As we discussed last time you started edit warring on the Swiss elections template, if you make an edit, and that edit is reverted, the onus is on you to start a discussion to obtain consensus for your edit. Thanks, Number 5 7 16:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this your final warning. I have repeatedly told you about BRD,[1][2][3][4] yet you continue to revert. If you remove the flag from the template again without consensus, then you will be reported for edit warring. Number 5 7 17:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is "BRD"? Féd Poppy (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Where is a consensus against my modification ? Féd Poppy (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I thought I had explained this to you when you were editing as "Paul Itiqu Fedtr", but the BRD cycle has three stages - someone makes a bold edit, someone then reverts it for some reason, and then a discussion follows. The person making the bold edit does not keep reverting to their preferred version whilst the discussion is ongoing. The person making the bold edit needs consensus for their change to be kept, otherwise the previous version remains in place. I hope that explains it. Number 5 7 17:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is a consensus against my modification ? I do not see any... Féd Poppy (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You need a consensus for your change. Number 5 7 17:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Wikipedia:Be bold. Féd Poppy (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Continuation of the discussion on Template talk:Swiss elections. Féd Poppy (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, really. Being bold is the first stage. You were bold, I reverted. You then repeatedly ignored requests to respect BRD. As a result, you have been reported for edit warring. Number 5 7 18:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Template:Swiss elections. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like an answer to the question at the top of this page about other accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are 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, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]