User talk:Mariuswaskilledbybarbarians

March 2018

Hello, I'm Greyjoy. I noticed that you recently removed content from For Britain 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. Greyjoy^talk 06:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to For Britain, 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. Greyjoy^talk 06:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at For Britain shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 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. Doug Weller talk 06:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018: warning

Your addition of unsourced opinion to For Britain together with removal of sourced content is disruptive and will get you blocked if you persist. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Please don't add any content, especially to controversial articles, without referring to a reliable secondary source (not to a political party's own programme or pronouncements; those are primary sources). Bishonen | talk 16:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Blocked

For posting offensive personal comments in Tony Robinson.----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 vhours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.