User talk:Ntbiabt

December 2010

In a recent edit to the page Bolshevik, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Please read the warning above, and the linked guideline. Wikipedia policy is to retain the variant of English in which an article was written, unless there are compelling reasons to change it. In this case, there are none. Not only are you adit-warring over this; you are also ignoring the fact that the article itself is called "Russian Social Democratic Labour Party"; by changing this, you are linking to a redirect, rather than to the article directly. If you think that the article itself should be renamed, please raise this, and make a case for it, on the talk page. POtherwise, please desist from your disruptive edits. RolandR (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. 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. RolandR (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bolshevik. 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. RolandR (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your 3RR report

Per WP:AN3#User:RolandR reported by User:Ntbiabt (Result: ). It is puzzling that you are opening a report when your behavior shows you to be warring against WP:ENGVAR. You should agree to stop fighting this. Your precocity as a user does suggest this is not your first account, so to immediately jump into an edit war is not to your credit. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RT101798 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]