User talk:Garageland66

September 2018
Your recent editing history at Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party 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..Icewhiz (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not involved in an edit war. I'm involved in protecting an article. Editors are entitled to revert edits. Especially edits that have not been discussed and agreed. Garageland66 (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You may have broken WP:3RR at Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. It might be in your interest to respond to the AN3 complaint and promise to wait for consensus before editing the article again. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You've continued to revert the article while making no response. Study of your block log shows a lot of past problems including a six month block, suggesting you were WP:NOTHERE. I've proposed you should now be indefinitely blocked. You have a chance to avoid this if you will promise to change your approach. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me what on earth I am entitled to do and what I'm not EdJohnston. I did ONE revert today. [] This article has a banner at the top stating there is an issue with balance. An editor removed a long standing part of the introduction which further created problems with balance. It had not been discussed on the Talk Page. Am I not entitled to revert such a major and controversial edit? Garageland66 (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Long term pattern of edit warring
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Long term pattern of edit warring. No understanding of consensus. 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:. Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. The most recent article where you have been warring is Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. As explained above, this is a long term problem and there is not much hope for the future. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It is hard to see how some of those were reverts not covered by (for example) BLP. Moreover it is hard to see how making one edit well after 24 hours if an edit war breach.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:3RRNO #7 explains what reverts are exceptions under the BLP policy. Unsourced defamation is an example. The reverts in question here were mostly in the area of WP:DUE where all the information is sourced but editor consensus is required to determine if a balanced summary is being provided. Reverting in the service of WP:DUE is not excused from revert-counting under 3RR; you still need to wait for consensus.EdJohnston (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston Shouldn't you have explained this when I asked what I'm entitled to do and what I'm not; instead of blocking me in spite of me having done NO further edits. I'd only asked for help. I did no more edits, yet I was blocked. Garageland66 (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You were warned above for edit warring by User:Icewhiz, yet you kept on reverting. You were told about the complaint at WP:AN3 and were given a chance to answer it, but you didn't do so. At any point in this process you could have stopped and asked for advice. You are not a beginner at this edit warring business. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies for keep getting things wrong. I'm not always able to respond quickly (due to work) and I made a deliberate decision to not do any more edits or reverts precisely because of the warning. EdJohnston You've stated that "At any point in this process you could have stopped and asked for advice." Please would you look again at the sequence of events.


 * At 15:02, 17 September 2018 I did my very last edit and made no more edits. Indeed this edit still stands; it was even reinstated by another editor.
 * At 15:36, 17 September 2018 you said "I'm planning to issue one final warning, and if no response, will consider an indef block."
 * At 15:48, 17 September 2018 you then said on my Talk Page (above) "You've continued to revert the article while making no response... You have a chance to avoid this if you will promise to change your approach. Thank you,"
 * At 18:39, 17 September 2018 I DID indeed respond stating "Can you tell me what on earth I am entitled to do and what I'm not... Am I not entitled to revert such a major and controversial edit?"
 * At 03:17, 18 September 2018 I was suddenly blocked even though I HAD made a response, I had asked about reverts and I had done NO more edits at all. I honestly thought I had done what was needed.

I am sincerely sorry that I keep getting things wrong. I find knowing when to revert and when not to such a minefield. I regularly have edits reverted, so didn't realise the danger of reverting. Please could you reconsider this ban. Thank you Garageland66 (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your article edit of 15:02 on 17 September was made while you were already under notice for edit warring, and without you having made any response to the noticeboard complaint. You seem to feel that your confidence that you are right is enough to justify making any number of reverts, with no reference to the opinions of others. Your block might be lifted if we were sure you would behave differently in the future, but after six previous blocks your credibility is low. In your above unblock request you ask questions that could easily be answered if you had read the WP:Edit warring policy. For example, "Am I not entitled to revert such a major and controversial edit?" In this case, no you are not. You are expected to wait for consensus. By this time, your ignorance of the edit warring policy doesn't deserve much sympathy. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So the block was for the edit whilst I was under notice for edit warring. Sorry, I didn't realise it was as serious as this. Apologies once again. Garageland66 (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Just an idea - agree a voluntary bad on any reverts for three months as a gesture of good behaviour.  Agree to propose them on the talk page and allow other editors to act (or not to act).  I'm sure a few of us would be happy to mentor you if Ed would buy into that as a solution.   -Snowded TALK 17:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you Snowded. I'm wary of putting in another appeal. I don't want to cause any more trouble. Garageland66 (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ritchie333. Having now read edit warring policies I can see what I've been doing wrong all along. I had thought that controversial edits could be reverted regardless of the number of them. I can't believe how stupid I've been by not being fully aware of the WP:3RR. Rather embarrassed actually. Garageland66 (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * You are wikilawyering here and its unlikely to get a positive response. I've seen a lot of people getting banned by arguing detail when the overall behavioural pattern is seen as problematic. Thats where you are so accepting a self ban on reverts and mentoring is (in my opinion) one of the few ways forward -Snowded TALK 20:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay thanks for the advice. Snowded Garageland66 (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CR76 Summer15.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:CR76 Summer15.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)