User talk:81.100.215.14

May 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.  Will Beback   talk    01:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No it was my intention and I did specify a reason in the edit summary.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on John Birch Society. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. TFD (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You revert my edit and then accuse me of engaging in an "edit-war"? I have made every effort to justify my edit, so go ahead and try blocking me.  I'll make an official complaint about your behaviour.  You're not going to bully me. --81.100.215.14 (talk) 02:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't make major changes to an article without consensus. This intro has been extensively discussed among editors.   Will Beback    talk    02:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is't a "major" change to remove one phrase that has defamatory intent. I read through the discussion page.  It seemed to me that the paragraph describing it as "far-right" and other terms was adequate for the argument being made by people who wanted to keep the term, even if it is a factually inaccurate term.--81.100.215.14 (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You have been reported at the 3rr noticeboard. Please respond here.  TFD (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to John Birch Society, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You removed sourced material without consensus. There is a discussion about you at WP:3RRNB. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed no material, and I am involved in the discussion already. Try to keep up if you want to be involved.--81.100.215.14 (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR does not allow edit warring regardless of the reasons. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You falsely accused me of something. You deleted my sourced material, making you a hypocrite.  And you are reverting my edits and "edit-warring", making you doubly hypocritical.  Do I make a formal complaint about you too?--81.100.215.14 (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want. I've only made one edit to the article, how many have you made?  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made several edits as I am trying to improve the article whilst simultaneously defending it against rogue users such as yourself.--81.100.215.14 (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31h to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war&#32;at John Birch Society. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"Anon" is simply a slang term which describes people who edit Wikipedia anonymously. And, no, you are not a second-class Wikipedia editor because you choose to edit anonymously. Also, please don't take this 31 hour block as a personal attack. It is simply designed to give you a cool down period. Because Wikipedia is based on editors collaborating and cooperating with each other; we want to discourage people doing this collaboration by 'reverting', and instead to encourage people to discuss the proposed changes on the talk pages to first find an agreement about proposed edits. (Also another hint: If your first experience with Wikipedia is the editing of contentious articles you may find your way here to be frustrating, it can be difficult.  It is recommended that you choose to edit on non-contentious articles if you want a more pleasant experience.)  SaltyBoatr get wet 20:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your concern, but I found the entire episode extremely one-sided and dictatorial. I don't intend to attempt contribute to Wikipedia again.--81.100.215.14 (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Responding to your request on my talk page: Well, objectively, Wikipedia is about the exact opposite of being a dictatorship.  We have no boss, (or dictator), around here.  The way we work is though decentralized group decisions.  In order to get what you want you need to find a way to persuade others to agree with you. (And, be open to hearing others and being persuaded to agree with them).  That said, yes there is a procedure to "make a proper complaint" here.  It is a process called 'dispute resolution', a multistage process which starts with trying first to work things out locally.  Then, if needed, it escalates up the ladder.  Read about the process here:  WP:DISPUTE. One piece of advice: You stand a better chance of receiving a favorable ruling if you work through the initial steps of the process before escalating to the higher steps.  SaltyBoatr get wet 14:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

March 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Domestic violence, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sarah (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

ok, I'll fix that, thanks

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you  [ create an account] . Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (81.100.215.14) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Sarah (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2013
Hello, I'm James086. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to International Rescue Committee, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, James086 Talk  11:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:James086 with this edit. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you, — Mel bourne Star ☆ talk 11:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * My opinion is unimportant because I haven't been published. Wikipedia only accepts information from reliable sources. Adding sarcastic comments like that to an article is not appropriate and will not help your cause. James086 Talk  11:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:James086 with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Arctic  Kangaroo  14:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to User talk:Arctic Kangaroo.   Wikipelli Talk   14:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to John Maynard Keynes. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.