User talk:62.45.158.228

November 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Clerical fascism, you may be blocked from editing. GenoV84 (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Clerical fascism. GenoV84 (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Clerical fascism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Longhair\talk 12:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as done at Clerical fascism. 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:. Longhair\talk 12:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Your block

 * 1. You arrived at my talk page once I warned you for edit warring at your talk page.
 * 2. While typing my reply to you, you again edit warred reverting the same content I'd warned you about previously.
 * 3. Both parties have been blocked. You for resuming while awaiting my response, the other for refusing to engage in discussion after you at least tried. Another administrator will review your block from here, but all I can say is, once warned, why continue knowing a block was the next available option to solve the current problem? -- Longhair\talk 13:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn`t know you were typing the reply. I merely meant to respond to the edit warring by GenoV84 and I thought you didn`t know the full context. When you said on your page that we both needed to stop, I wrote a reply saying I would comply but it turned out I couldn`t post because I had been blocked. I apologise for my stupid actions. I have tried to discuss the matter with GenoV84 on many occasions, but he refused to respond on the talk page of the article, simply called all my edits vandalism, and deleted my attempts to discuss this on his talk page and called that vandalism also. 62.45.158.228 (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)