User talk:Choise

January 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to List of political parties in Australia has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: List of political parties in Australia was changed by Choise (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.879959 on 2014-01-11T00:00:48+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.  Josh3580 talk/hist 08:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Ipswich, Queensland has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Ipswich, Queensland was changed by Choise (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.879197 on 2014-01-13T23:01:38+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Patricia Petersen edits
Please refrain from reverting my changes to the Patricia Petersen article. I have done a lot of work removing references that were dead weblinks and expanding the section on Patricia Petersen's electoral history and more up to date on the now defunct Australian Independents political party. None of this information is bias or slanderous - it is just the facts.SnapMcCrackle (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Patricia Petersen, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Parkywiki (talk) 07:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

You have once again reverted my edit on the Patricia Petersen article with no justification. Please refer to the talk page on that article if you wish to discuss anything. Your changes are not constructive.SnapMcCrackle (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Once again I am trying to engage with you. My article edits on Patricia Petersen are more up to date and more relevant. There is nothing bias in discussing someone's electoral history. The version you keep reverting to is full of obsolete information, and references that do not have working weblinks. SnapMcCrackle (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
Your recent editing history at Patricia Petersen 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 article's 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. — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 10:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Patricia Petersen. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC) I've blocked you for 72 hours from now for block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've now blocked you indefinitely for continuing to evade your block.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)