User talk:RevolutionizeSeven

Proposed deletion of Royston Smith (politician)

The article Royston Smith (politician) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Wgolf (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use monthly salary data on the article about average monthly salary please

Here is why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage#Average_monthly_salary_IN_A_YEAR_not_month_(Use_average_salary_announced_by_statistical_office_for_the_whole_year_and_not_one_month.) --Hussein.ayatollah (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Brexit Party for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brexit Party is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brexit Party until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on Brexit

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you 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.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

the reason behind the blocking is pure bias, read the article itself to see where the "conflict" began, it is due to the inherent bias of the article itself which is nonsensical and there is total consensus on the talk page that this article has a political pro-EU bias. this needs changing and i added facts referenced from the times about the reality since the brexit vote rather than spurious forecasts about the future which are nothing more than guesses

Decline reason:

You were blocked for your behavior, not your views. You were clearly edit warring; the fact that you think you are right is not a defense. To be unblocked before the expiration of your block, you will need to demonstrate that you understand WP:3RR and describe the proper manner in which to resolve an editing dispute. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2019 (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.

You were blocked for sustained edit-warring after warning. A conviction that you are right doesn't make any difference. Please see WP:EW - this is a bright-line violation. Acroterion (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]