User talk:Moote

Welcome!

Hello, Moote, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Hi Moote, welcome to Wikipedia. When adding to an article remember that these are encyclopedic articles that should be free of recentism and local-only knowledge. My own home village has a fly-tip called Monkey Island, but it is of no importance outside of the town and will not help people from another country understand the area. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weekend programs

Hi! I took a look at your edit. It's important for a school article to mention the weekend programs. See this page of Orde Street School which mentions that the Japanese school is held there. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Britain First

Hello. Three issues... 1) I've deleted your edit summary, as it crossed the line into personal abuse. Please don't do that again. 2) You are now edit-warring, into WP:3RR and are becoming liable to be blocked if you continue. Please don't just continue reverting. 3) The wording you are using suggests that it is an ex-movement as well as an ex-political party. While it may be de-registered, your edit is clearly inaccurate as it suggests it no longer is anything. I'll bet you have no sources to support that. Please join the discussion on the talk page. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are some editors here who are repeatedly adding an unsourced claim that a small far-right group is a UK political party. Evidence is that this has now become a false claim. Per WP:BURDEN, it is incumbent upon those editors to support their claim that is still a political party. They have given no evidence for this. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy is one of the people you'll meet on the talk page. With BF protests just in this last week (though rather pathetic) following de-registration,[1] it's going to be difficult to maintain that it's an ex-movement. TBH I'm not really interested in any of this content debate, I'm just trying to help you see the problem with the current changes so you can work forwards in a harmonious manner.. The other two issues are my main concern. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has claimed that it is an ex-movement. It is a political ex-party. That is different.

BF has long distanced themselves from other small groups of angry right wingers by claiming to be a political party. Despite their lack of success, this was at least nominally true. It is no longer true. Editors trying to impose this now false claim on the article need to back off from that, whether they are doing it from bias, or from failing to appreciate UK electoral law. At least one of them claims that "UK law isn't relevant to WP", which isn't an uncommon viewpoint but needs to be resisted firmly. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the current wording it says it was a movement, like an ex-movement. You'll know as well as me that this is a common issue when using 'was', which can be easily resolved with a coordinated tweaking of the wording. You suggested as much on the talk page, so I suggest Moote joins in the discussion. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say that. I haven't seen any version that did say that. Right now, as of this change it uses "is" and "organization", which I would happily support. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? "Britain First was a ... political party and movement".[2] The edit summary you linked seems to address that, so I don't think it was just me. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Britain First. 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. AusLondonder (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have now violated 3RR. Hopefully an admin blocks you now. AusLondonder (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Britain First. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:51, 8 November 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).

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

Request reason:

I cited the Electoral Commission documentation of 02/07/2017, but user Hazhk ignored this changed back without citing documentation, that user is the one not providing facts see - http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP2214

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, in particular for breaching the three reverts rule. You will need to address this, and only this, in any future unblock request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:35, 9 November 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.