User talk:Meenmore

December 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Timeline of sovereign states in Europe. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 15:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the timeline of sovereign states in Europe is inaccurate in international law. It is claiming Great Britain is a continuation of England. United Kingdom of Great Britain was created by the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England in 1707. Great Britain is a continuation of Scotland and England. Both the Flag of Scotland and the Flag of England make up the flag of the United Kingdom. I understand Wikipedia is often criticized for having a lot of inaccurate claims passing off incorrectly as facts. This is why I believe it is essential for the knowledgeable to correct the inaccurate.

The content of the timeline of sovereign states in Europe is inaccurate

The content of the timeline of sovereign states in Europe is inaccurate in international law. It is claiming Great Britain is a continuation of England. United Kingdom of Great Britain was created by the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England in 1707. Great Britain is a continuation of Scotland and England. Both the Flag of Scotland and the Flag of England make up the flag of the United Kingdom. I understand Wikipedia is often criticized for having a lot of inaccurate claims passing off incorrectly as facts. This is why I believe it is essential for the knowledgeable to correct the inaccurate.

December 2016

Your recent editing history at Constitution of the United Kingdom 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. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Treaty, Articles and Acts of Union 1707

A tag has been placed on Treaty, Articles and Acts of Union 1707 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

It's not an article and not a list -- better suited for the creator's sandbox

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can people see sandbox contributions

I am new to wikipedia. I thought I could edit away as long as I have the sources. Can people see my sandbox contributions? What date is the oldest contribution you can see of mine publicly?

My apologies if my editing appear disrespectful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meenmore (talk • contribs) 12:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Special:Contributions. All of your contributions that haven't been deleted are publicly visible. –Grondemar 05:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Treaty, Articles and Acts of Union 1707

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Treaty, Articles and Acts of Union 1707, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It covers a topic on which we already have an article - Treaty of Union. (See section A10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Treaty of Union, or to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Safiel (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Nation state. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jim1138 (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Nation state. Jim1138 (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Adding references is how we ensure that content is valid. Without references, a reader can not easily validate information and there is no presumption of accuracy. See Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:footnotes. This is covered by the Wikipedia policy of wp:verifiability (WP:V). Please wp:cite your edits with wp:reliable sources (RS). Per WP:V unsourced content can be removed. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 11:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You undid my contribution without talking to me and you then ended the discussion on your talk page. I was in the process of entering my source onto the page. You undid at the same time as I entered it. Giving me no time to cite my source at the bottom of the page. You undid it for the sake of it. In my opinion you did not assume good faith. I note you have undid the contribution of another editor as they were entering their source. You appear to have form for this kind of bizarre behaviour. Meenmore (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Great Seal of the Realm. 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. Calidum 02:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Constitution of the United Kingdom. Seriously -- how do you expect this to end? You are a minority of one. You have been reverted on a number of articles where you are pushing your POV take on Scotland's historical rule in the United Kingdom. I suggest you start over; Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

PS You might also choose to look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and initiate appropriate action. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, you are an American Englishman. America is after all an English colony. The system of law in America is the English common law. The relationship between Scotland and England is a UNION and is not the same as the relationship between England and America where the latter is a COLONY of the former. The Union of 1707 did not change the status of America the English common law was still the law of the land when the Union of Scotland and England took effect and the 1783 Treaty of Paris did not change that status either as the law of the Englishman is still the law of the American. I understand why you appear to believe, of course incorrectly, that the Constitution of England is the Constitution of the United Kingdom. The Constitution of the United States would be very similar to the Constitution of Great Britain if Great Britain was a republic, we do have to remember the framers of that great document were rebellious Scotsmen and rebellious Englishmen. Meenmore (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you.

You've been reported at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Meenmore reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: ). At first sight, you do appear to be edit warring and you are risking a block. Your question (on the talk page) about the country of origin of the person editing the article is the type of thing we associate with nationalist editors who are here on Wikipedia to wave their flag. It may be in your interest to respond to the complaint. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Country of origin is relevant in this case. My country of origin is Scotland and the Constitution of the United Kingdom relates to my country as my country was one of the two countries that created the state in 1707. What we have on the Constitution of the United Kingdom page is what appears to be an English nationalist whether this English nationalist or his friends are native born or adopted is irrelevant. My edits will stand until the English nationalists can explain to me why only English documents or events are included in the history prior to the creation of the United Kingdom called Great Britain and any mention of Scotland is time and time again excluded. Blocking me would be nothing less than anti-Scottish discrimination. In the end I did not remove any sources, I just relocated it. I will continue to mention the constitutional history of all three jurisdictions of the United Kingdom not just the constitutional history of just one of its jurisdictions. Meenmore (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Your recent editing history at British Army 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. BilCat (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Meenmore reported by User:Calidum (Result: ). Thank you. Calidum 06:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock}}.

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:40, 10 January 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

My actions were done to ensure the content of the British Army page is consistent with the content of related pages such as the History of the British Army page, the Royal Scots Army page and the English Army page, the pages for the Scottish and English armies state the active years of the respective armies are (1660-1707). However, the British Army page contradicts the Scottish and English army pages with its claim that the British Army was also active in 1660 and in fact the page claims it was founded in 1660. The editors have not provided official UK government, state or parliament published sources to back up their claim the British Army was founded before the British state. I think it is important the content of one wikipedia page does not contradict the content of another when the pages are related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meenmore (talk • contribs) 06:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The reason you give for being unblocked is simply an explanation of why you think your edits were right. Did you notice that the warning on edit warring above dated 23 December 2016 says "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right"? Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that he or she was right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right. Considering the number of messages about edit warring you have received and the amount of edit warring you have done, a token 24 hour block to try to get you to take notice at last is fairly minimal. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2017 (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.

I find it extremely bizarre that I have been blocked. There is a widespread anti-Scottish agenda found in the wikipedia pages relating to the United Kingdom, its history, its constitution, its law and its armed forces. The notion that the British Army was founded in 1660 as the English Army is a notion of total incoherent nonsense and anti-Scottish discrimination. Meenmore (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't say if you are right or wrong but even if you are that does not mean you get to edit war. Use the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, your insistence on "official UK government, state or parliament published sources" indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's standards on sourcing. There are very good reasons why we don't use only such "official" sources. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge, it is not a matter about me being right or wrong what matters is the content of wikipedia pages align when two or more pages relate to each other. In this case, the Scottish Army and English Army wikipedia pages relate to the British Army page. The Scottish Army and the English Army pages both give active years as (1660-1707) as a matter of consistency with the British Army page, I edited it to align with those years. If both the Scottish Army and the English Army were deactivated in 1707 this means the British Army became active in 1707 therefore 1707 is the founding year of the army. The issue we have to deal with is why editors on the British Army page are claiming the British Army was founded in 1660. The British Army of Great Britain, the state that was created in 1707 did not exist simultaneously with the Scottish Army, the then army of Scotland and the English Army, the then army of England and no amount of personal opinions published in books will change that.

James, the British Army is the official army of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland only official UK government, state or parliament sources stating the army was founded prior to the creation of the British state will be credible. The British Army is governed by the state government within the state parliament of course sources from the place of its government are the only sources that cannot be disputed. Meenmore (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that sources from governments "cannot be disputed" is a surprising one. However, even if you do take that view, you are missing the point, for two reasons. (1) The issue is not whether government sources can be disputed, but whether any sources other than government ones can be taken into consideration, which is a very different matter. (2) I don't know whether I can manage to make this clearer than has already been done, but whether you are right about any of the issues involved (such as whether government sources are required, whether different articles are consistent with one another or any other issues relating to whether your edits were justified or not) has no bearing whatever on the reason for the block, which was edit-warring. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not twist my words. The British Army is governed by the UK government and every five years there needs to be an Act of Parliament to ensure it has continued legality. The United Kingdom is not like the United States where the latter has a written constitution. If the British state government, the government of the state created in 1707 states the British Army existed along side the Scottish and English armies prior to 1707 then we have to change the founding year of the British Army which is 1707 to the year in which the source states, however, because it is extremely unlikely any UK government will create such a paradox, I think the wikipedia pages of the Scottish Army and the English Army should align with the wikipedia page of the British Army. Scottish Army (1660-1707), English Army (1660-1707), British Army (1707-) Meenmore (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you are clearly not going to give up WP:IDHT, so I shan't waste any more time trying to help you understand. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a widespread anti-Scottish agenda on the United Kingdom pages relating to its history, its law, its constitution and its armed forces. The British Army was not founded in 1660 as the English Army, the British Army was founded in 1707 as the British Army. My edits are done in accordance with the rule of wikipedia. Scottish Army and English Army pages are now consistent and align with the British Army page. If I am blocked again for blatantly improving the content of a page so it aligns with its related pages then so be it and a martyr of wikipedia I shall be. Meenmore (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on British Army. 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. BilCat (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Constitution of the United Kingdom, 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. Whizz40 (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Nation state. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Whizz40 (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Constitution of the United Kingdom, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Whizz40 (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Nation state.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Whizz40 (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Nation state 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.
5 reverts in one hour... Stikkyy (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Meenmore reported by User:Whizz40 (Result: ). Thank you. Whizz40 (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Constitution of the United Kingdom. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 27 January 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Why did you block me? Did you actually examine the talk pages of the Nation state, the British Army page or the Constitution of the United Kingdom? Is there not a rule against what can be described as Wikipedia gangs ganging up on single editors claiming it is consensus? I was not edit warring. Due to the fact Whizz has been on wikipedia longer than I have, does that means they are allowed to start edit wars with me without first seeking consensus on talk page? My contribution to the Nation page stood for several days before Whizz suddenly arrived on it and began an edit war without using talk page. Similar can be said for the British Army page. We actually reached a consensus on the Constitution of the United Kingdom page but after a few days he then started his edit wars with me. Using North Shoreman as his sidekick.

Decline reason:

You very clearly were edit warring at that article, and attacking other editors in your unblock request is not going to help get you unblocked.

I also note that this is your third edit warring block so far this month, and if you continue with this approach to editing Wikipedia when it expires, your next block is likely to be considerably longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2017 (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.

Whoa, looking back over your edits these past few days, I see massive edit warring yesterday at Nation state too, where you made seven reverts in less than three hours, against three editors in opposition to you. You are very lucky that your current block is only for 72 hours, and it greatly increases the chances that any further edit warring will be met with an indefinite block - if fixed-term blocks aren't getting through to you that edit warring is unacceptable (even if you are right about the content - I have no opinion on that), the next admin along might well conclude that indefinite is the only other option. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for me to speak with a senior administrator? I asked you a question is it acceptable for Wikipedia gangs to gang up on single editors? Meenmore (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a "senior administrator" on the English Wikipedia. If you have a specific complaint that you think needs administrator attention, you can make a report at WP:ANI - but do be aware that you would need to provide specific evidence of any accusations you make, and that the behaviour of all sides would be taken into consideration. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and to answer your question (while ignoring the emotionally-loaded terminology), it is perfectly acceptable for multiple other editors to disagree with edits that you want to make and to revert them. If that happens, you then need to start a discussion on the relevant article's talk page and seek a consensus for your change. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, you will have to wait until you are unblocked again - it's for a week this time. This edit was a blatant continuation of your edit warring, and the edit summary was a personal attack on another editor. Please read WP:EW, WP:Consensus and WP:NPA while you are blocked, and be aware that if you do not change your approach to collaborative editing then you will surely be excluded indefinitely. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions are currently monitored by Whizz40 and his gang, and are it appears dependent on whether they agree with them or not. They have roundly dismissed my sources stating they are entered to be disruptive. What gives them the right to conclude that? I do not appreciate the personal attacks on my editing character. I advise you to read the sock puppetry page again. Meenmore (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you now meatpuppeteering? Myself and North Shoreman already had a disagreement on the Constitution of the United Kingdom page. He believes only the opinions of English jurists have weight on the Constitution of the United Kingdom and the opinions of the other two thirds (Scotland and Northern Ireland) of the United Kingdom should be dismissed as disruptive and when we were discussing the topic on the talk page on said topic, he did not engage by not answering the questions I asked him. Myself and Whizz40 had a similar disagreement. However, our disagreement on the Constitution of the United Kingdom should not spillover onto other pages. The fact Whizz40 undid my contribution on Nation state and when I reinstated it guiding Whizz to the talk page, North Shoreman suddenly appears as well as another bizarre account which had no previous input on the page. The onus is now on you to dispute this clear example of sockpuppeteering and meatpuppeering. You have also followed me on wikipedia and now claim I am conducting my complaint in bad faith. You were asked to decide whether I was edit warring you concluded I was and blocked me. Now you are following me around wikipedia. Meenmore (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you make changes, and someone else disagrees with you, they are allowed revert you. After that, the obligation is on *you* to start a discussion at the article's talk page and seek consensus. That is the way consensus-based editing works, and if you want to edit here then you are obliged to follow that approach. And if you continue to make accusations against other editors, I will revoke your ability to edit this page for the duration of your block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The editing environment and history of the editing on the Nation state page should be completely independent of the Constitution of the United Kingdom page. Continue the path you are taking. What happened on the Nation state page is a clear example of meatpuppeteering the same as you getting involved in my complaint. You did your job, now you are getting way too involved. Meenmore (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not involved in any way that prevents my acting in an admin capacity here, as I have no opinions on the disputed content of the articles in question - please see WP:INVOLVED. If you think my block is wrong, you know how to make an unblock request, and another admin will review it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you not addressing my complaint of sockpuppeteering and meatpuppeteering? Investigate what happened on the Nation state page and please explain if you believe what happened is not sockpuppeteering and meatpuppeteering. One rule for genuine editors and another for clear sockpuppets and meatpuppets. I wanted an impartial investigation but the fact you acted in your capacity as admin to influence the outcome of the investigation is a clear abuse of power in my opinion. Why did you not allow an independent impartial investigation to take place? Meenmore (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, you know how to request unblock. And if and when you are unblocked, if you think I have abused my admin status, you are welcome to make a complaint about me at WP:AN. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have stopped an investigation taking place, can you explain why? You have to explain to me why North Shoreman arrived on the Nation state page and undid my contribution after Whizz40 undid it, the editing pattern of both editors are consistent and their conduct are clear examples of meatpuppeteering, the quickness of the arrival of North Shoreman onto the page to agree with Whizz40 does not do the pair of them any favours. And the third meatpuppet Stikkyy also appeared to arrive on the scene suddenly. The fundamental and crucial point that you are overlooking is my contribution stood for over 2 weeks, I established myself on that page whereas Whizz40, North Shoreman and Stikkyy appeared to have arrived on that page not to contribute but attack my contribution only. They had no history on that page whereas I had nearly 2 weeks old of history. Their arrival was an attack and their actions were done to provoke a response. No edit war in the true sense of the meaning took place. I did not undo their contribution believing my contribution was superior as the parties who ganged up on me had no contribution to that page. Their sole intent is to turf me off every page I edit or contribute to. This situation will be elevated. Meenmore (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{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. Boing! said Zebedee 15:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not stop edit warring, these blocks are just going to get longer until you end up blocked indefinitely. (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee Can you please page protection my contribution on the Nation state page. I have altered it and have entered another heavyweight source. Now my sources consist of well known constitutional jurist A.V. Dicey (A English lawyer cited numerous times within major cases of a UK constitutional nature), official UK Government publication published from their website, and now a source from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom published from their official website. Meenmore (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not, no, Wikipedia does not work by you dictating content and then getting pages protected the way you want them. And an admin is not allowed to decide which is the better version to protect at. Wikipedia works by consensus, and if you are reverted then you should seek a consensus through discussion (as you have been told numerous times already). To be honest, I was close to seeing your latest revision as edit warring yet again, but as you say you have done something different and have provided better sources, I'll leave it for the page's watchers to decide. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you recently removed some content 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. Materialscientist (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the content because the sources could not be reached and the person who made alterations did not have consensus to alter the updated version. Meenmore (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Nation state". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 7 March 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Nation state, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Meenmore reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: ). Thank you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Meenmore. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently self-requested block

An editor with the user name AlbionChief has asked for this account to be blocked, stating that it is another account of his or hers. I have checked the history of both accounts, and it seems to me almost certain that is true, so I shall carry out the request to block this account. If, however, the two accounts don't belong to the same person and you wish to have this account unblocked, or if it is the same person and you have changed your mind about having this account blocked, then please request to be unblocked. You can do that by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of this page, replacing the words "Your reason here" with an explanation why the account should be unblocked. In that situation any administrator is free to unblock the account, without consulting me. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) JamesBWatson didn’t account for the third possibility. AlbionChief’s “ I have forgotten password” stands actually for losing a workstation in control of another person – otherwise why to request block for an account having the forgotten and seemingly strong password? How to rule if this hypothetical person eventually requested unblock acting under Meenmore? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Incnis Mrsi: (1) I was assuming that any administrator reviewing an unblock request would have the intelligence to make basic checks on whether it was the same person, rather than just blindly unblocking without giving the matter a thought. (2) It is actually fairly common for someone who has lost a password to request a block on their old account. You ask why; well, if I know that I will never be able to use my old account because I have lost its password, then I have nothing to lose by having it blocked, but if anyone else ever manages to find the password then there is something to gain by having it blocked. In a situation where a particular action cannot possibly cause any loss and may possibly (even if improbably) have an advantage, then it makes sense to take that action. As for "seemingly strong password", how do you know that? I haven't seen anything that gives any indication whatever as to how strong or weak a password it might be. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Had I forget a weak password of own production, I would attempts a score of guesses before registering a new account. But conduct in such condition, of course, depends on the user’s mindset and habits. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Incnis Mrsi: Oh, yeah, and of course doing that and failing to come up with the right one would guarantee that the password must be strong enough to resist attacks by someone with password-hacking software, wouldn't it? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am Meenmore, I cannot remember password for Meenmore so I created another account in good faith. I was editing Treaty of Union page and was asked if I had edited the page before under another account because I sounded familiar. I checked the rules regarding multiple accounts which prompted me to request the blocking of Meenmore. AlbionChief (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]