User talk:Adrian Fey

April 2019
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Brexit negotiations. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Fraser Anning
Please read the administrator's note at Talk:Fraser Anning. StAnselm (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019
Your recent editing history at Fraser Anning 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&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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged. The situation has mostly calmed down for the moment, as the series of repeated edit reverting is now over and the disputed paragraph is now sourced. My apologies for any inconveniences the feud may have caused. Adrian Fey (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit conflicts
I recommend simply copying what you have written, refreshing the page, and then pasting it into the new version of the talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
Abecedare (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Adrian: I realize that you are new to editing wikipedia and still becoming familiar with its policies, jargon and formatting. The above notice will become relevant only if you decide to purposefully ignore the policies, or edit-war in article-space. As long as you ask questions on talk-pages when in doubt, and take the feedback on-board, you should be fine. Abecedare (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Linking
You may find this tutorial on how to link to other wikipedia articles, and to external webpages useful (it's trivially easy, one you know it). Abecedare (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Fraser Anning
What's going on, mate? Did you read all of the talk page discussion? Did you see that everyone else accepted the compromise position to mention cultural Marxism but not describe it? StAnselm (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's clearly not what anything near "everyone else" has accepted. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Template:LGBT rights table Europe; 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: 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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Edit warring as a habit
See WP:BRD. Since I can see you've already been warned multiple times for edit warring, on multiple articles, I will just briefly remind you that you should discuss contested edits on talk pages. Grayfell (talk) 01:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Strange article move
What was the purpose of this move? Why did you move Wikipedia is not a reliable source to "Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a reliable source"? Was this a mistake? Please explain. Grayfell (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC) You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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:. Materialscientist (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

LGBT rights table Europe
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Template:LGBT rights table Europe, you may be blocked from editing.
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

The Constitutional Tribunal and the Supreme Administrative Court sufficiently, clearly and definitely stated that the Constitution bans same-sex marriage by defining marriage as a heterosexual-only institution. WSA has no power to undermine or change the interpretation of the Constitution settled by the Constitutional Tribunal or the Supreme Administrative Court. The decision of WSA sets no precedent and is not binding authority.

On 11 May 2005, the Constitutional Tribunal ruled that: "The Polish Constitution specifies marriage as a union of exclusively of a woman and a man. Thus, a contrario, it does not allow same-sex relationships."

On 9 November 2010, the Constitutional Tribunal held that: "The doctrine of constitutional law also indicates that the only normative element that can be decoded from Article 18 of the Constitution is the principle of heterosexuality of marriage."

On 25 October 2016, the Supreme Administrative Court of Poland stated that: "The Act on Publicly Funded Healthcare Benefits does not explain, however, who is a spouse. But this concept is sufficiently and clearly defined in the aforementioned Article 18 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, which refers to marriage as a union between a woman and a man. The literature emphasizes that Article 18 of the Constitution establishes the principle of heterosexuality of marriage, [...] which prohibits lawmakers from statutory granting the status of marriage to relationships between persons of the same sex. Therefore, it is obvious that marriage in the light of the Constitution, and hence, in the light of Polish law, can only be, and is only a heterosexual union, and thus same-sex individuals cannot be spouses in a marriage."

On 28 February 2018, the Supreme Administrative Court of Poland ruled that: "Article 18 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, which defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman, [...] requires to treat only a heterosexual union as a marriage in Poland."

HumRC (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)