User talk:Pageseditor

September 2019

Hello, I'm Alex Cohn. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Fanny Law, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 19:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Sick man of Europe, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder about this. Reverts and adding references are not minor edits. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2019 (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:Pageseditor reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: ). Thank you. — MarkH21 (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed this report as "no action". MarkH21, please try a personalised message next time. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hong Kong Police Force is available to all parties

Hello Pageseditor. Per my comment at the noticeboard, the page at Talk:Hong Kong Police Force is open for you to explain your thinking. It seems especially ironic for you to have requested full protection of the article after a succession of 7 undos of another editor's contributions, while never using the article talk. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks EdJohnston - sorry if it did seem ironic. I wanted to contact a Wikipedia moderator, but I didn't know what exact procedure I had to follow. The first thing I could think of was flagging it up for page protection. No problem with openness at all, even though some people would abuse it to challenge the neutrality of a Wiki article. Thanks. pageseditor (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2019 (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:Pageseditor reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: ). Thank you. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please stop edit warring and engage the talk page often, instead. I'm asking that you start being more resposnsive when queried about your edits. Thank you. El_C 18:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leaving me a note here. The lack of response was due to no ping. I haven't got time to sit at home or check Wikipedia all day, so the entry on 30 September got lost in the sea of messages flooding in from MarkH21. — pageseditor (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I can't say MarkH21 is a troll. Just because someone has been a long-term editor doesn't mean their behaviour here is always honourable. We clearly have someone who know how to play by the rules and pretend to be the righteous one, in order to silence a different opinion. — pageseditor (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve been pinged and messaged plenty of times to explain your reverts. Still nothing. I can’t be silencing opinions by literally asking you for yours. — MarkH21 (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, sorry I clearly wasn't aware of it - 'there have been plenty of opportunities' - and perhaps I inadvertently ignored your incoming messages as I was busy outside of the Wikipedia world. I'd close this case if I were you. Enjoy savouring the pleasure of successfully reporting an editor. Stop wasting our time, will you? — pageseditor (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't observe WP:ONUS and can't find the time to explain yourself, then you are not going to be permitted to continue reverting. El_C 07:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: El_C, I don't need to explain my logic to someone who is disguised as an 'editor' but who fills Wikipedia entries with leftist Internet propaganda under the clauses of 'neutrality' and 'accuracy'. That irony. The entire saga was extremely amusing. As Wikipedia is supposed to be edited by anyone, it has shown the world that this is clearly not the case. Of course, we have to tolerate stupidity of others, which is what I have been doing with you. The international media will do the world justice; the BBC has already covered it and exposed the true nature of some Wikipedia 'edits' in their news. It is difficult to undo the wrongs when Wikipedia is flooded with leftists; however, the world of academia will make every effort to educate people of the danger in trusting Wikipedia entries. Adi, Mr. Commie! — pageseditor (talk) 10:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea whether you were on the right or the left of the given debate (or that the dispute was split across these lines in the first place), because, as mentioned, I have yet to examine the edits themselves. I suppose now I know. But regardless, I don't see why me being upfront about my biases ought to have anything to do with anything — grounds for attacks, or mention at all concerning our interaction. You behaviour has remained consistently below par. That is a fact. Somehow, you expect to be accorded special privileges, where you can avoid explaining yourself and be permitted to attack other editors at will. Naturally, comments containing personal attacks will not be considered. And if you continue with these, even access to editing this talk page will be revoked. El_C 15:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: It's a bit confusing because I had actually assumed that pageseditor was someone with a far-left lean. I don't edit these article with any particular lean and I was just reformatting the article, removing redundancy, and removing material that seemed to be just news-style reporting regardless of political bias. So Pageseditor's rambling is pretty nonsensical to me. — MarkH21 (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you indefinitely, for blatant violations of WP:NPA and WP:NOTHERE. WP:GAB explains how to request an unblock if you believe you have not been violating these policies or otherwise are willing to commit to substantially reforming your interactions. --Yamla (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]