Jump to content

User talk:25162995/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Haggis

Please bring the changes you wish to do to the talk page and do not indulge in pointy edits. The fact is that haggis is currently the national dish of Scotland, this is not historical information and does not belong in the historical section. Recent discoveries about an English recipe book does not change this. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"The refrence to it being a Scottish National dish is not in contention." In which case would you please replace this text in the lead. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


Again, I ask you to stop editing this article and bring the changes you wish to make to the talk page. I have concerns over a number of the changes you have done. Edit warring is not productive. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. This is exactly the kind of discussion we should be having before you start reverting what has already been changed. The point is that you have left the article with the suggestion in the lead that because an English recipe book mentions haggis before any recorded Scottish mention, this casts doubt on its Scottish origins. The cited text of the book say nothing about the origins of the dish. The history section covers the possible origins (which are inevitably indeterminable) in a far clearer manner. Please revert your edits and bring the changes you wish to do to the talk page and stop edit warring. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


File Copyright problem
File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:English def leg.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Please use the talk page to discuss controversial edits --Snowded TALK 13:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. on English Defence League You are constantly reinserting material and not discussing matters on the talk page. Discussing matters means reaching a consensus not simply making a statement and then immediately reverting the material --Snowded TALK 14:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation report made here --Snowded TALK 14:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page English Defence League. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring, 3RR violation and disruptive editing. 55 hours

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Canterbury Tail talk 15:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

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).

25162995 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I fully understand that i have broken the 3rr rule and appologise for this but if you take a look at the EDL discussions page you will see that i have been trying to take part in constructive debating to resolve the issue. I would ask if you would consider the removal of my block for this reason. Many thanks

Decline reason:

You have a history of edit-warring and should know by now that it's unacceptable. The means of discussing content should be through Bold, Revert, Discuss, not Bold, Revert, Revert, Revert. There is also Dispute Resolution, but insisting on your own version before consensus is reached is disruptive. Rodhullandemu 15:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

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.

Another review: agree with Rodhullandemu. You were trying to discuss, but discussion only helps when people stop reverting. You kept reverting. Discussion is supposed to show you are willing to listen, want to be heard, and are going to stop fighting. Especially in a case like this where you are the only one supporting your edits while many others oppose them. If you don't stop reverting, you aren't discussing, you're just saying things to justify your continuing edit war. Mangojuicetalk 15:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Reminder (Warning)

Please do not start edit warring on the EDL article again. Discussion should take place on the talk page, or a noticeboard (such as WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN) if that fails. See WP:DR. Thanks. Verbal chat 13:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I realise I'm repeating myself, but if you disagree with me and other editors about NPOV, then post your thoughts on WP:NPOV. Please let us know at the article talk if you do this. Thanks, Verbal chat 14:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The word "libel"

RE this comment on WP:WQA: "I would also like to remind you that your comment is libelous in a court and can be classed as a defamation of character so please watch your remarks." Using legal terms like libel, court, and defamation can be considered a legal threat and is one strike blocking offence; see here WP:NLT. My suggestion would be that you remove that line (not strike, just remove) and replace it with nothing or a comment how you'd rather they didn't cast aspersions on your motivations. Please do this as soon as possible. Verbal chat 14:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And sorry about getting your name wrong. Verbal chat 14:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't help myself

Manner= How someone behaves, their attitude. Manor= A country house, Where a cockney geezer might hang out. Sorry, but you use this word alot.--Alchemist Jack (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably true. I shouldn't have mentioned. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for uploading File:Afroooo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILYsock(TALK) 01:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Unite against Fascism

Do you understand WP:BRD? The stable position did not include the "left wing" label. Please restore that version and either reopen the discussion or raise an RfC if you want make a change. --Snowded TALK 17:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

User Name

what is the issue with my user name? Johnsy88 (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"88" is a code word that would be recognized by other editors in articles such as UAF, EDL, BNP and Rudolph Hoess.[1] TFD (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
it is also the shirt number (88) of in my opinion one of the Cowboys greatest ever wide receivers (American Footballs) Michael the playmaker Irvin, so please dont make a prejudiced assumption about my political beliefs on a whim because you think im a nazi? this has nothing to do with nazism and if you took time to read my profile and also check my youtube channel - johnsy88 you will see i have made films supporting the remembrance of the holocaust and have deleted in excess of over 500 comments of anti Semitic origin Johnsy88 (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes I did check your Youtube channel and am making no assumptions about your political beliefs. Other editors however may not, which may prejudice them against your edits on these articles. TFD (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
in that case what is the method for changing my user name and what impact will it have on my wiki page. thanks Johnsy88 (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
You may file a request here. I would just say that you were unaware but that another editor pointed out that "88" is a code word. Your wikipage will be renamed. See also Wikipedia:Changing username and Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. TFD (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't change your name for the reasons above. I merely added a link to a talk page and that caused some guys to make similar false claims or implications about me as is now happening with you. If I recall correctly, this guy making the "code word" suggestion to you is one of the guys who claimed my adding a VDARE reference to an article's Talk page similarly suffered. Forget it. Your name is fine. So is Michael Irvin and his number 88. And, just fyi, see WP:DIGWUREN: "All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee. This applies both to the parties to this case as well as to any other editor that may choose to engage in such conduct". If you need help defending your name, please let me know. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I love how he links you to the 88 Nazi connection. In the very next paragraph, to which he did not link nor mention, it says, "88 is used as shorthand for 'hugs and kisses' when signing a message in Amateur (ham) Radio. It is used in spoken word (radiotelephony) morse code (radiotelegraphy) and in various digital modes. It is considered rather more intimate than '73', which (roughly) means 'best regards', and therefore 73 is more often used. The two may be used together. Sometimes the 88 or 73 is pluralized by appending an s, which is incorrect.[4] These number codes are at least a century old." A century old.
So, Johnsy88, 3s and 8s to you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your advice. To be honest the whole editing process for the article im trying to improve( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_Against_Fascism) has been an uphill struggle due to what appears to be the unwillingness of other editors to accept what i consider reliable sources (i also wont lie that in the past when first editing WP i took part in my fair share of UNDO battles etc but have really tried to make an effort to be as factual as possible in recent years). I wont lie that although im not that new to WP my editing is restricted (mostly by my lack of understanding of certain workings of WP that go over my head) but i do try to keep as civil as possible when making edits and taking issues to the discussion pages but don't really get the same courtesy back which can be incredibly frustrating when i am simply trying to provide a factual and NPOV so that it improves not only the article but WP as a whole. Thanks again for your advice though Johnsy88 (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I know exactly what you mean, and I deal with exactly the same issues with exactly the same people. Stick to WP:BRD and WP:AGF and you should be okay. But don't let them bully you. The TFD comments above are part of a subtle bullying effort to let you know who's boss. Guess what. It's not TFD. You both have equal rights here. The nerve of the guy to get you to try to change your name for having 88 in it, and then saying he's fine with it but others might be prejudiced. How clever. Really, unbelievable. These guys operate in packs to intimidate people like you. Do not be intimidated. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Another user (EVula // talk // ☯ //) just changed your name and moved you!!! If you want help getting back your original name to align with your YouTube account and for other reasons, please let me know. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
See his Talk page as I asked him why he did this. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Outside opinion: 88 is used as a code word identifier by a minority political movement. You have edited in an area of interest for that minority political movement. But when I checked your user page, it was rather obvious why you use 88 in your user name (other users may have other reasons, such as year of birth, etc.) Something to keep in the back of your mind in relation to your editing area; but, not really something that needs or begs for community intervention.

In relation to your edits ibtimes should be considered much like a Trotskite paper of better repute, as its editing is politically engaged by definition "What ties us together is the objectivity of our opinion, the originality of our insight and our advocacy of economic and political freedom around the world." (ibtimes "about"). Additionally, their site has internal errors: the Australian edition's opinion section 404s for me. Reliable source, but just use the normal caution about sources with political agendas. In this case ibtimes is likely to have a deliberate bias against left-wing organisations. Happy editing. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I now see you asked him to change your name. But I think you did that before I suggested something else may have been afoot. So I suggested EVula take a fresh look at the issue. I think you can be switched back, if you want. I think I've helped you all I can now. If you want, ask EVula if you can have your previous name back. Good luck. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah this is annoying, i should have cancelled this but was unaware it was going to go through due to the chat we had. my mistake though. I will attempt to try and revert the change back to my original name. thanks for your help Johnsy1983 (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Given that, if I recall from yesterday, the guy who changed you agreed with me on his Talk page to change you back. You simply have to ask him, if you have not already done so. Go ask, if you wish. Good luck and have fun. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah thats good news then. I messaged him earlier but im unsure of his TZ so hopefully he should get back to me in 24hrs with good news Johnsy1983 (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Renamed back to your original name. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Johnsy88 red.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, another message that looks intimidating. It's not. In this case, it is probably accurately placed. You can simply ignore it and the picture will be deleted soon per the message, or defend it by supplying copyright information if you can as directed above. Copyright really is very serious, that is why copyright is respected on Wikipedia. So the scary-looking message is really just polite notice that copyright issues have been identified that need to be addressed if you intend to keep the picture. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok so i think i added a copyright {{Non-free 2D art} to the image as directed in the help but im not sure if i have completed it correctly. i went to the file,went to edit and added this to the end of the description. hopefully this is correct. Johnsy88 (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If you created the image and you'd like to use it on your user page, it needs to be released under a free license. Check out the list of free licenses. The Creative Commons ones are popular, or you may be interested in a public domain release. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Johnsy88 red.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Johnsy88 red.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 06:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD

You really need to read the above policy you know. The addition of "left wing" to UAF was reverted per it and at no stage was a consensus reached to add it. According to Wikipedia rules that means the long standing version should stay in place until the issue is resolved. You seem to be taking a contrary position, nanely that a contested change should be the default position. If you want to establish that you are taking a NPOV then accepting the rules even when you don't like the result would be a good start --Snowded TALK 

12:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Snowded, please abstain from making any further comments on my user page or to myself. I am taking this matter further with regards to the way in which you correspond with myself and what i consider to be the abusive manner in which you ignore my attempts to talk on disccusion pages and make consistent accusations against myself claiming many things including that i am the arbitrator of edit wars and Non NPOV. This issue will now be passed on and you should be contacted shortly as i am no longer willing to discuss matters when you appear to not act in a civil manner Johnsy88 (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
In order to avoid edit warring with you over a disputed item I added a tag. Please leave that in place as a holding operation while the wider issue is resolved. I am happy to stay off this page if you follow proper process. However it seems wrong to clutter the talk page of the article with an issue that is directly with your editing style. --Snowded TALK 12:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
snowded, i will reply to you because i feel everyone is aloud a 2nd chance. the edit war that has started on the article was started due to the fact you came to the page, saw the label which it is clear you do not agree with(and yet it remains on UAF article because issue cannot be resolved and it carries weight although not a huge amount which is reason for whole dispute) you also made the unfounded assumption that i instantly edit from a non NPOV and felt the need to go through and change the article even know already reviewed by an administrator yesterday and cleared as suitable (see chat by going to view history or follow above link in previous comments) the label will remain left wing as per the label on the UAF Article as this is factual Johnsy88 (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Well at the moment the majority of editors do not agree with you on the factual nature of your label and you persist in ignoring the WP:BRD point there. If you think that other editors are precluded from editing an article simply because an admin has agreed to withdraw a deletion proposal then you are sadly mistaken. Your accusations on the long term abuse notice board by the way contain at least one blatant falsehood. You might want to review it, amend and apologise. Its worth remembering that raising another editors conduct means that yours will be reviewed as well. --Snowded TALK 12:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
i made no such statement with regards to who can or cant edit because the article has been cleared by an admin, my original comment with regards to the admin was made due to the fact the you claimed the article may have to be deleted for reason X.

why do you insist on speaking to me in such a derogative manner. and i understand that i made a mistake with regards to the claim on my user name after reviewing my talk page and will remove it and apologise for a false accusation which i admit was done solely by mistake. I am also fully aware that i will come under scrutiny by raising such an issue and i would prefer it if you did not attempt to highlight that i will also come under scrutiny for raising the issue, i am fully aware of this and would not have raised it without knowing full well that i will be looked at very closely. What i would like you to understand is that i simply want to be spoken to in a fair manner and with a certain degree of respect that i attempt to give to you when editing. I am not whiter than white and in the past i have made silly updates when i first joined WP and took part in edit warring. However what i have learnt over the years i have used WP more and more is that it serves only to hurt and dilute WP itself by either denying sources and facts, arguing with other editors and edit warring, editing from a non NPOV and most importantly making accusations in a manner which people will find offensive. As i see it the matter has now been passed on and although again i would like to thank you for once again bringing this to my discussion page i feel that it will be counter productive for this conversation to continue until the matter is resolved properly Johnsy88 (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You know its remarkably difficult to help you when you treat any criticism or comment as "derogative". When you find the right forum and produce a proper case remember to notify me on my talk page so that I can respond --Snowded TALK 13:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Unite Against Fascism

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Unite Against Fascism. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. This edit appears to be Inappropriate notification: "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement)." TFD (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your advice, im sure it will help me very much in the manner in which i conduct my future edits and the way i conduct myself in future on WP.
If you continue to research my contact with user:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (which is open for anyone to see) you will see that there is no evidence in any way, shape or form that he agrees with my point of view because "i" have orchestrated or persuaded him to think in my method of thought. From what i can see you appear to imply (in a guised manner and i may be wrong and apologise if i am) that i have practically "canvassed" him because i know he will support my opinion, However I asked his opinion because i wished to get the point of view of a person who wasn't heavily involved in the history of the Unite Against Fascism discussion page or the article for that matter and this is exactly what he did which i thank him for his input and i feel i am quite entitled to (see WP:RFC) ask his opinion if i need help or advice. Johnsy88 (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

TFD - I think we have a very naive editor here. So although he broke the canvassing rules I think it was more of a bumbling accident than a deliberate attempt to influence the outcome. --Snowded TALK 19:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please cease from using my WP Discussion page to make guised and formal insults against my edits. There was no such accident nor was it a deliberate attempt to influence the outcome and if you can provide with "sources" and "facts" to support this and present this to me in a manner which is not toned in such a rude manner i will consider your opinion. What i feel are your attempts at provocation for a reaction will not come so please cease from endlessly insulting me. Thanks

I saw what he did, I knew it may have been problematic under the rules, but I cut the guy some slack as a newbie. Further, I had helped him a number of times and I encouraged him to contact me for more help. So when he finally asked for such help, I wasn't going to jump down his throat. I'm not saying what TFD/Snowded is wrong. Rather, I'm wondering if there is a way to address newbies in a much more user friendly way. This newbie has been buffeted left and right by one complaint after the next, I'm not surprised he is now thinking everything is an "insult". TFD/Snowded, I know it's easy to assume everyone's the same. In Johnsy88's case, could you guys please try to give him gentle guidance without making him feel "insulted"? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit War

Please note that the RS notice board has clearly come to the conclusion that the "left wing" label fails WP:WEIGHT. You need to build a consensus if you want to insert it (as you should have done the first time round. --Snowded TALK 19:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

please provide a link to RS board, thank you Johnsy88 (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
RS notice board is 7-3 against the use of 'left wing". Please respect that and stop edit warring. There is nothing to stop you continuing to argue the case on the talk pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard --Snowded TALK 19:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The issue is not resolved as per reading the forum, therefore until resolved the label remains as per WP policy Johnsy88 (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
7 to 3 Johnsys88. I really suggest you self revert. You now have a 3rr warning and you will get an ANI report for edit warring against consensus twice, and you already have a track record on this --Snowded TALK 19:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Unite Against Fascism. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

if any such ban takes place i will immediately appeal the ban and the matter will again be raised further. This blatant attempt at the bullying of my user name is well documented and only continues to provide evidence of unfair treatment when it comes to the consideration of my edits Johnsy88 (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
You are not being bullied, you are being asked to abide by community rules and by clear consensus. You may not like the result but you have to live with it. I really do suggest you self-revert --Snowded TALK 19:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The case of weather im being bullied or not is not down to your opinion .i also never asked for your opinion so could you please cease from attempting to engage in conversation with myself considering todays goings on with regards to me raising an issue with your name as i feel it would be silly and counter productive for both parties. i will not revert as a factual and trusted newspaper the times has provided a clear source and label of left wing for UAF and therefore it stands. I would appreciate it if you would follow my request and not continue to engage in what i feel is pressure and bullying. Thanks Johnsy88 (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
What issue have you raised with my user name? Curious on that, otherwise if you want to ignore the community consensus on your own head be it. --Snowded TALK 19:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Please refer to my above post dated and time stamped 19:31, 13 December 2010 Johnsy88 (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Uh, that is what I am asking about. You say "with regards to me raising an issue with your user name". What issue have you raised with my user name and where? --Snowded TALK 19:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I will post this again for the last time

"The case of weather im being bullied or not is not down to your opinion .i also never asked for your opinion so could you please cease from attempting to engage in conversation with myself considering todays goings on with regards to me raising an issue with your name as i feel it would be silly and counter productive for both parties. i will not revert as a factual and trusted newspaper the times has provided a clear source and label of left wing for UAF and therefore it stands. I would appreciate it if you would follow my request and not continue to engage in what i feel is pressure and bullying. Thanks"

That is all i have to say to you today and until further notice and this is due to my above points Johnsy88 (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, the three-revert rule states that a user may not perform a revert on the same article more than three times in a 24-hour period (and, in most cases, that's even too many reverts). This is a pretty solid, hard-and-fast rule, and unless you're removing blatant vandalism or cleaning up copyright violations, there's not really any excuse for it. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
First of all thanks for replying directly to me.
that makes perfect sense and is fair enough. I have my reasons for my reverts which i am trying to clearly outline in my edit summary and will attempt to make myself more clear in future so that this does not happen. Thanks again Johnsy88 (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

3rr Report

Report made here --Snowded TALK 12:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Johnsy88, if you "edit warred" or a bunch of people think you did, just apologize and say you now understand the WP:3RR policy and you won't do it again. Further, I suggest you don't do it again. It doesn't really do much but cause trouble. Now if you are reverting vandalism repeatedly, etc., you're okay. Don't get too worked up about this -- it happens to lots of people, sometimes lots of times, like myself! One time I was blocked for 3RR and the blocker realized he made a mistake and reversed it. There's an example of why to WP:AGF. In the mean time, when you respond to people, but sure to be polite. Good luck! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI

You are being discussed at ANI and may respond here. TFD (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop

Please do not remove links to active deletion discussions. If you disagree with the article's deletion, the proper thing to do is comment on the discussion, not to remove the template from the article. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

hello, i have replied and have no received another reply Johnsy88 (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Unite Against Fascism

Please don't describe an edit that is clearly not vandalism as vandalism like you did here. This can be seen as a personal attack and breaches our civility guidelines, best Mo ainm~Talk 20:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Your behaviour

It is also the second time that you have reverted an editor restoring a position that has been endorsed at the RS and NPOV notice boards. You may not agree with it, but you should self-revert. If you continue to act in this way I intend to lodge an ANI report in respect of your behaviour not just on the UAF article but elsewhere --Snowded TALK 21:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

my discussion page is not the UAF discussion page. Please take this to the UAF article and please refrain from making threats on my page. if you wish to raise such a discussion i suggest that you do it. Thanks Johnsy88 (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
This is an issue regarding your behaviour hence my raising it here. And it is an issue regardless of the outcome at the UAF RfC. You can delete/respond/ignore as you will. --Snowded TALK 21:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
This part of my discussion is specifically about the UAF actually, hence the heading. start a new heading if you wish to discuss other issues. And with regards to TFD's edit i apologise..My mistake, he was actually edit warring "However, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, but edit warring-WP:VAN"Johnsy88 (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
You want a new heading - OK you have it. TFD put in place the result of discussion at two notice boards. You reverted that, as you had done previously when another editor attempted to do so, in that case breaking 3rr. Previously you edit warred against WP:BRD because you thought you were right rather than respecting the rules and using the talk page. You had to apologise over your recently deleted article, and you edit warred there. You attempted to make two reports about my behaviour but failed to provide evidence in support. You made claims about admin support which were false - I think because you simply did not understand. Your edit summaries when you have just reverted someone say that people should not edit war! I have several examples of that recorded by the way, you make a controversial change and then edit war to retain it admonishing other people for what you are doing. A friendly suggestion, get yourself a mentor who can help you understand how things work around here. The way you are going, your behaviour is going to end up with a community sanction of some type. --Snowded TALK 21:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Ive been through all this before with you in the past.
  • The Admin locked the page because of the fact that edit warring was taking place on "BOTH" sides and no consensus was reached and still has not truly been reached.
  • I did not have to apologise but i did so because i understand that this is the right thing to do when proven wrong and because i have a small amount of humility and respect for people who i clearly see as fair and honest editors.
  • I did make claims of Admin support which in turn actually were incorrect and which i fully accept.

Lets be honest with each other as grown adults should be for once. I feel snowded that what you fail to understand is that by making guised jibes (which you may or may not agree or disagree with and have clearly disagreed with in the past on the report page) you are fighting an uphill battle. Also if you read the report page you would see that i have attempted to make it clear that my main issue with yourself (if you could possibly call it an issue)is the maner in which you conduct your communication's with me. a simple reconciliation attempt by yourself as i have previously asked although not directly could help to resolve this on going issue by establishing a common ground in which the article and the label can be represented in a fair manner that suits all partys. However it seems at the moment that it is simply your opinion and your supporters against my word and those who support my stance on the matter.

Dont think that my comments are in jest to annoy or antagonise you because they are not. they are made from a position of integrity and you may wish to ignore or accept them but try to simply see this as an olive branch and not as a form of guised argument that will only continue this matter further Johnsy88 (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Your not annoying me or antagonizing me if that is any comfort. I find it ironic to say that least that you say you want to establish common ground, but without exception if you are challenged you simply revert and claim that you are right. The "left wing" label went to two separate forums and was resolved against you, but you still edit war. Sorry but your statements about your intent are not matched by your actions. Enough, I've given you some advice about a mentor which I think you should consider, the number of apologies you are having to make for mistakes supports this need. I've also given you fair warning. I'll leave it at that, its up to you if you want to take any of this seriously.
ok, in future and if it is acceptable only with consideration and agreement from yourself of course, i would like to be able to consult you on issues as a "mentor" of sorts if you are willing to take this responsibility upon yourself and if not i understand your reasons for rejection of this proposal. I would also like you to consider and leave feedback (if you agree to my above suggestions) on my comments with regards to my suggestion in UAF discussions dated 22:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Johnsy88 (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
You suggestion on UAF was a positive move and I have responded with a proposal. On mentoring, well it would be churlish to refuse but you might want to find someone more politically aligned with your thinking. However I'm happy to advise if you want. First advise would not be to say you are not a Nazi in capital letters (that will tend to produce a he is denying it so it must be true response) but to simply say why you chose 88 so that other editors will not make the assumption that it is a code; if it is not important to you I would change the name, its going to keep on coming up. --Snowded TALK 05:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Outside Opinion Hi Johnsy, Snowded asked me to comment here, on my talk page, looking at your talk page and your contributions I think mentoring would be very worthwhile to you and will stop the needless blocks you have received. In all honesty it can't do any harm and you should seriously consider taking a mentor. My opinion of your username is that you should change it. You have mainly edited EDL and the UAF articles and with the 88 part of your username it obviously can be seen as code. I wasn't aware of the significance of the 88 till I checked up the code meaning. I know you have explained your reasoning for the username but as you see below this will continue to crop up as long as you edit in the area you are editing. I know from experience here that once a label is put on you no matter what your edits are like, it sticks, so don't give editors a reason to label you. You are free to revert this comment if you wish but it is given in good faith. Mo ainm~Talk 10:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Apologise for the late reply but i have been working but thankfully finished for Christmas now.

That you for your positive Snowded. I will make the consideration shortly (few days) and let you know where i stand with regards to the mentor idea if thats ok.

Username: I will be changing my user-name to johnsy1983. By this action hopefully confusion will not arise with regards to my edits on potentially politically sensitive articles that could be seen as edits from a POV. I must admit that i am not happy to do this but i can see both sides of the coin and this hopefully will help in regards to acceptance of my edits Johnsy88 (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: The RfC has clearly come down in favour of removing the "left wing" label. If you now revert you will be going against community consensus and I will take it directly to ANI --Snowded TALK 12:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how reverting an edit which conforms with the majority position of a RfC will "prevent an edit war". I really think you need to have a look at how your willingness to edit war (and there have been a lot of cases) is being used by other editors. They can sit back and wait for you to make the edit and keep their hands clean. --Snowded TALK 21:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Look snowded as i said before in my posts on the WP:UAF-Discussion no true consensus was made. And as i already stated i am quite willing to compromise which you yourself were at one point in favor of by adding a line to the lead of WP:UAF stating that the media have portrayed the UAF as Left-Wing (this would be more factually correct than the existing label of left-wing). It seems clear to me that editors wait until the heat is off from the arguing in discussions and then slowly revert parts of the article to the equally contentious state of not having the left-wing label. This can be easily resolved and yet people clearly do not want to compromise. Johnsy88 (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Johnsy there has never been any consensus on any talk page or forum to support the insertion. Attempts at a compromise edit made some time ago which did recognise that the some media have called it left wing were reverted by YOU. --Snowded TALK 21:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes it was originally reverted by me but after discussion between yourself and myself i agreed or was in favour of the compromiseJohnsy88 (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

88

Hi Johnsy. You may regard it as none of my business, but your username is maybe a bit unfortunate if you are going to get involved in articles to do with the far-right in Britain. You seem to know a fair bit about the far right, so maybe you are aware what "88" denotes in the context of far-right organisations.

To be clear, I'm not accusing you of anything and I suppose you were probably born in 1988 or something. You might not want to go to the lengths of changing your username, but maybe putting something prominent on your userpage about your opposition to the far-right (from your comments, I'm guessing this applies) may help to avoid confusion.

Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

no offense taken, please see the above discussion about my user name in my discussions and all will become clear. if you read the user discussion pages of the above editors who were involved in these discussions the matter should become more clear to you. thanks again Johnsy88 (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, sorry for not checking above first. It does look like it's now come up at least 3 times independently of each other though, so maybe it is still something to think about. Fact of the matter is, some people are going to assume you're a Nazi. That's not only going to lead to confusion, but maybe also to some people taking against you without actually bothering to read your posts properly. --FormerIP (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Im used to it now to be honest so im not really worried about it. if it needs explaining over and over again i just tend to get on with it now but thanks again for being civil. i appreciate it :) Johnsy88 (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

UAF left wing

I guess we're going to be debating this change in the morning? I agree with you, but it won't go down well with some. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes the debating will continue im afraid. As i stated to snowded in the above heading labelled -your behaviour- i have stated that a compromise can be made that is more factually correct but it seems that no one wants to debate it as they would rather stick with their POV which is a shame.Johnsy88 (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
It is a shame. I guess that's the nature of the world though, no one man can agree. I shall bid thee a goodnight. It's late in Russia here. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Searchlight

Searchlight is considered a reliable source for far-right issues. This was raised earlier on the talk page and reference made to previous discussions at the RS notice board. In any event if you dispute a citation then you should dispute it, NOT delete it. --Snowded TALK 22:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no dispute over searchlight. however a third party self published website www.hopenothate.org.uk is not a reliable source but a third party website which claims to be affiliated to searchlight. The website is incredibly POV driven and is not a reliable source like the actual searchlight website. find the source from the searchlight website. i will remove it again and re insert [citation needed]. please do no revert unless you intend to add in a searchlight website source saying the same thing. ADD: also with regards too searchlight, the more i read about them the more i find that they are not reliable due to the nature of there shoulder rubbing with UAF considering that orginally they were part of the steering committee for them. what i am getting at is that if they are so reliable how can they be trusted considering that they have a clear Anti EDL POV due to the nature of their previous support for UAF. This is clearly a POV issue and anything added to the EDL website from Searchlight will be shown in a negative light and with a certain amount of POV which does not help make the article fair and balanced. Johnsy88 (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
If you check here you will see that Searchlight advertises itself as the magazine of the Hope not Hate web site so it is not a third party website making a claim to be affiliated. You are wrong in fact and should restore the previous position. If you want to dispute the reliability of Searchlight then you can do so at the reliable sources notice board, but on previous occasions it has been confirmed as a reliable source. Aside from that you know perfectly well that the leader of the EDL is a former BNP member, the other named leader signed BNP nomination papers. Sorry these are facts, if they portray the EDL in a poor light then so what? You are also edit warring again--Snowded TALK 23:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes however that is still a third party website of searchlight. if the times comes up with a source but puts it on a 3rd party website would it be accepted? no it would not. stop relying on 3rd party websites and use attributed sources because this is obvious double standards. and i have seen the RS notice board on Searchlight and the majority of the archived editors discussions reject it as a reliable source. and sorry but they are not facts snowded they are POV statements from from an organisation which once helped form the direction of the UAF which you full well know is completely opposed to the EDL which is clearly not going to help represent the article in a NPOV is it!? Johnsy88 (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Please provide the diff to the RS notice board where a majority of editors rejected Searchlight as a reliable source. --Snowded TALK 23:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
How about you go and troll through the discussion yourself on the RS archive because i have already done it once this week and you will see for yourself that it is considered contentious. what makes me laugh snowded is that you bang on about RS for the UAF page and when the most contentious and POV driven source comes up you use it for your own ends to support your POV whilst others are quite willing to actually work towards portraying all articles in a NPOV. As a highly educated man im actually genuinely surprised that you would resort to what appears to be apparent underhanded techniques to push POV. Is this really how you want WP to work? Johnsy88 (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
You just made a claim, back it up. You might also want to read [2] this article in one of the more right wing newspapers. i look forward to you including this material in the article to demonstrate your independence. Oh and lay of the personal attacks "underhanded" is not acceptable. --Snowded TALK 23:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
So you feel that searchlight is not POV driven with its articles towards the EDL??
The thing is Dave is that you really do clearly think i have sympathies for the EDL(and have done from day one) when what i am actually interested in is seeing them portrayed in the same light as any other political movement on WP because the whole point of WP is about building NPOV articles to inform the public and allow them to make their own mind up about the issue ,Not to shield them from thinking a certain way by what they may read. I feel the difference between myself and you is that you reject sources from the AP, The Times, ABC etc etc (just see the list on UAF DIS) and then bang on about searchlight which is very biased and driven by POV being a reliable source? who are you trying to kid with this clear and apparent POV pushing. And i will not apologise for saying that you are acting in an underhanded manner because for any outsider who is not TFD,Multi,or one of your other backers it would be apparent that you advise people to do one thing and do the complete opposite yourself Johnsy88 (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I see you can't provide a link to the RS discussion, probably because your statement was false. What you meant to say was that some editors opposed recognising Searchlight, but instead you made a silly claim that a majority thought so. Otherwise I am sorry but you are again being foolish in your claims above. I have not rejected the Times as a RS on UAF, but pointed out as have others that they only use the phrase "left wing" in one of more than forty articles and further that their are no academic or other sources. This is WP:WEIGHT which I think you don't understand (I am being charitable here, and assuming that you are not simply ignoring it as its inconvenient). Otherwise the community has determined that Searchlight is a reliable source, you can of course attempt to change that. You really are running at risk you know, your first instinct if you think you are in the right is to edit war not discuss, and you too readily engage in personal attacks. --Snowded TALK 06:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This should be either at the article talk page or RSN. Johnsy88, you've hit 3RR. you'd better stay away from the page for a while. Dougweller (talk) 07:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Blah Blah. ive heard this all before and you refuse to recognise any of my points above which i should have expected from you by now. Hopefully you live a long and happy life knowing that you are working in direct conflict with the freedom of speech. But then again going by your edit history on specific subjects im not surprised by this either Johnsy88 (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
And doug, I hit 3rr because the above user has tried time and again to allow a source which is not reliable and is a 3rd party website that affiliates itself with Searchlight. Its like using WWW.TotalLies.com/thetimes as a reliable source because it has the times in the address bar. Johnsy88 (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2012

Your recent editing history at Unite Against Fascism shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

Given your past history of edit warring I am putting this warning up now. Also you are using misleading edit summaries, omitting to mention your deletion of all party support for UAF. Please stop that and use the talk page. ----Snowded TALK 12:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry snowded. Ive learnt my lesson honestly i have governor! Please dont report me to the wiki police or i may run away and cry boo hoo Johnsy88 (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Professor Dave Snowden aka User:Snowded

if you will be so silly as to publish a Wikipedia Article (which has no relevance at all on wiki and only fills it with yet more unneeded junk) then dont be afraid to share your identity with the rest of the WP community. Dont worry Dave, I will get those page view statistic above the 20 you get a day Johnsy88 (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Unite Against Fascism

Could you please remove this edit which is a personal attack. TFD (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You are being discussed at ANI and may reply here. TFD (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


Re:fights on the 80th military base

Dont use my talk page to discuss with User:Tienouchou, you have your own talk pages or the article talk page to discuss your disagreements, and also I dont have entered that discussion.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Re:NPOV/johnsy88 talk page post

Wow, simply incredible, you are trying to accuse me of POV-pushing or something similar because my talk page userboxes? And you seriously state that because of that I couldnt made edits on Battle of Aleppo and other Syrian civil war articles? Are you serious? First, the NPOV policy applies to the users edits, not to the users personal pages. Theres something that perhaps you dont know that is called freedom of expression. If your twisted and crazy allegations were followed, all users with "controversial" userboxes had to be banned from editing, wich would be, apart from non-sense, a fascist discrimination (something I suppose you would like) of hundreds if not thousands of WP users. Second, you shouldnt be accusing others when your attitude, edits, and personal page is algo questionable (former British Army soldier, most edits on fascism-related articles, and using 88 (what means in far-right circles HH-Heil Hitler) in your nick. That smells like some ultra ideology instead of apolitical, huh?. And third and final, User:Tienouchou (as any other user) has all the right to ask other editors to express their opinions on an article or its talk page, wether you like it or not.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

HCPUNXKID In layman terms i will try to explain this again as clearly you have taken it completely the wrong way.

You are editing a page which relates to all the the previously mentioned user tags on your profile. This will be deemed as controversial and will be brought up as WP:POV if taken the wrong way by any user they will report this as such and the obvious consequences will follow. THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK ON YOUR BELIEFS which apparently you believe it is. This is a factually based observation which you have taken the wrong way.

2nd: My post about POV was in relation to the edits made on the Battle of Allepo article and its relation to your user boxes. Not towards your user page directly nor your talk page.

3rd: I am not a "fascist" nor have i made accusations in any form and by carefully reading the grammar and context of my message on your talk page you will see this

4th: If you have an issue with my username or feel that i am in breach of POV then i would suggest you report it through the correct channels.

I am not here to WAR with you in any way nor start tit for tat arguments. I am simply pointing out a fact and trying to help you. If you decided to take my advice or not is up to you but i would ask that you remove your comment from my talk page that i am a "former British Army soldier, most edits on fascism-related articles, and using 88 (what means in far-right circles HH-Heil Hitler) in your nick. That smells like some ultra ideology instead of apolitical" as this is a personal attack and if it is not removed i will raise this issue with the admins. If you feel that i am a fascist then look at my youtube page under "the holocaust" and decide for yourself. Johnsy88 (talk) 10:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Your non-sense comments are astonishing to me, really. Let's be clear:
  • 1st: If someone dont like my personal page userboxes, its his/her problem, not mine. Also, that dont disqualify me to edit whatever article I want, related or not with my userboxes. As I said before, that would disqualify thousands of WP users to edit articles, wich would be unfair, undemocratic and illogic. Finally, if you cant understand that WP:POV refers to editing articles, I dont know what more to say, sincerelly.
  • 2nd: Could you point where I have accused you personally of being a "fascist"?. I simply said that banning someone on editing articles related to his/her userboxes is a fascist attitude, and I maintain that opinion. Also, I pointed that your personal page could be questionable, as you said of mine's, exposing facts, not personal opinions: You are a former British Army soldier (or that's what you assure on your personal page), many of your edits are on fascism/anti-fascism articles (see your edits historial), and your nick contains the 88, wich in far-right circles means HH-Heil Hitler. All that combination of facts could made many think that you are not apolitical, but otherwise have some ultra ideology (wich is not the same as fascist, I suggest you to look at the dictionary). That doesnt mean that I assure or feel that you are "fascist" (wich I dont have done), but it wouldnt be rare that someone think that. So, Im not gonna remove nothing, so if you have any problem with it, report it.
  • 3rd: Your actions (engaging in discussions and edit-wars with many users) doesnt fit with your declaration "I am not here to WAR with you in any way nor start tit for tat arguments". And what to say about "I am...trying to help you", curious manner of "helping" someone who had not talked previously to you, engaging him in arguments, and threatening with reporting him to administrators, I dont want to think what you do with people that you dont try to help... I would suggest you to try to improve WP articles (wich is what I, and I expect the majority of WP users are here for) instead of trying to discuss and have problems with any other user.

--HCPUNXKID (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

HCPUNXKID Thanks for your prompt reply in this ongoing discussion. I would like to say always strive to improve rather than detract/war when editing articles which i feel is in the best interests of WP (something i have learned from many years of editing WP and realising that personal attacks and opinion pushing gets you nowhere but i digress lol).
As i already stated before, I believe you are making a direct implication that i am a fascist by implying that i have an "ultra ideology". I believe that this "attack" is proved by this comment "fascist discrimination (something I suppose you would like)" in which you (in brackets) support your claim on an "ultra ideology" by implying that i would enjoy fascism. I also believe that your comment that i have made "twisted and crazy allegations" is also uncalled for as the latter is clearly anything but either twisted or an allegation in any form.
I personally believe that the aforementioned is a personal attack (i believe this is because you have taken constructive criticism the wrong way) AND once again i am asking you would please remove this from my user page. If you do not comply with this i will be forced to report this as a personal attack WP:NPA. I would also like to point out again that i have not threatened you at any point and have simply tried to help you to understand WP policy and the NPOV policy. Johnsy88 (talk) 07:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

March 2014

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Amanda Knox shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I was going to point out that you were past 3RR and suggest not editing further. But you just reverted and are at 5RR. Please look for a post on WP:EWN shortly. Ravensfire (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:25162995 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: ). Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:25162995/Archive_1&oldid=1136214255"