User talk:Secobi

Shift to fascism listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shift to fascism. Since you had some involvement with the Shift to fascism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). bobrayner (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incremental fascism listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Incremental fascism. Since you had some involvement with the Incremental fascism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). bobrayner (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming fascism listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Incoming fascism. Since you had some involvement with the Incoming fascism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). bobrayner (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Increasing fascism listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Increasing fascism. Since you had some involvement with the Increasing fascism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). bobrayner (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: New helper policy

Hello member of Category:Wikipedians who use IRC! You are invited to join an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help aimed at defining a policy for prerequisites to being a helper in the "#wikipedia-en-help ^connect" channel in a section titled "New helper policy".

To prevent future mailings about IRC, you may remove your user page from Category:Wikipedians who use IRC.
Assistance is available upon request if you can't figure out where it is being added to your user page.
This message has been sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC) on behalf of — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)}[reply]

November 2020

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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bilby (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. Edit summaries directly and transparently address the issues for now. If and when brief and concise arguments are repeated in the summaries then it will be appropriate and cordial to increase the size of the talk page with lengthy or elaborate multiple sentence discussions regarding edits of a trivial, single sentence size. Until then, it's more appropriate to keep the talk page free of unnecessary argumentation for the sake of editors and readers, and Wikipedia's ease of use . Secobi (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing 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 ~~~~}}. Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per edit-warring report at permalink, challenged edits must be discussed on article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, just logged back in. Thanks for posting the notice. I guess it's too late to disagree, especially when my edits followed guidelines, though I volutnarily withdrew after the exact 3rd attempt, and the block, it appears, came so much later after the fact of editing. I guess its still good to do these administrative necessities, and junk up my talk page, too, with it. But, either way, rules are rules, no matter how much you want to finger fuck them over a 'first offense'. Very civil.