User talk:Worthfulrebel

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! S Philbrick (Talk) 13:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. ∯WBG^converse 11:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

∯WBG^converse 11:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

∯WBG^converse 11:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Citizenship Amendment Act protests; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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.

Please note that this article is now on WP:1RR DBig Xrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts on CAA protest

You repeatedly removed this line from the lead. You were the first editor to remove it, when you removal was reverted by Pali, following WP:BRD it was your responsibility to start a talk page thread and invite Pali to join that discussion, but instead you continued the WP:EDITWAR and instead of starting the talk page discussion yourself, you were asking the other guy to start the talk page discussion. Please do not repeat this behavior in future. Follow BRD, for your own good. --DBig Xrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 21:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Your recent editing history at Citizenship Amendment Act protests 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Reminder that the article is on WP:1RR DBig Xrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 19:29, 20 December 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:Worthfulrebel reported by User:DBigXray (Result: ). Thank you. DBig Xrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 19:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is extremely unfortunate that you have resorted to ride a roughshod on WP:1RR. I will not be happy if you are blocked for this, and so I would suggest you to self revert your recent addition of the disputed line from the infobox. I am willing to withdraw the complaint if you self revert and agree to not edit war anymore and continue the talk page discussion. --DBig Xrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 19:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CAA protest page

I am not sure what you are intending to do here, I have asked you to post these on the talk page and not in the infobox. If you repeat this again for whatever reasons, I will have to report you for violation of WP:1RR. --DBig Xrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 12:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Your recent editing history at Citizenship Amendment Act protests 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

you have violated 1RR on this page with this edit. You should self revert yourself, Or I will have to report this behavior at the right forum for this. DBig Xrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 12:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have ownership of the infobox. You are in violation of Wikipedia:WRONGFULCON and WP:TPE. If you want to apply a TalkPage first mantra, then apply it equally to all editors rather than just political viewpoints that you disagree with. I'm not going against any rule currently and I'm happy to involve an admin again. Worthfulrebel (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions reminder

Worthfulrebel, You have an ARBIPA sanctions notice only recent. Please note that deletion of sourced content, addition of unsourced content, UNDUE plugs for political parties, edit-warring etc. all considered violations of Wikipedia policies, and will be grounds for sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Citizenship Amendment Act protests. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. DBig Xrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 13:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating the one revert rule, which is a discretionary sanction violation. If you wish to appeal, please follow the format outlined at Arbitration enforcement and I will copy your appeal there. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 14:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]