User talk:New Speech Killer

February 2016
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. ''Please quit your POV disruptions of electoral system articles. Given the extreme similarity to recent edits by IPs, I am assuming this is deliberate disruption.'' Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggested reading
Hi, New Speech Killer. Welcome. I suggest reading: Consensus to help you inform others of your concerns about articles and guide them on a path, which achieves consensus. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 00:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi New Speech Killer, please stop calling me names. I don't call you names. I have a hard time understanding your issue with the words in question. As I have mentioned, before. the appropriate place to discuss issues regarding articles is at the Talk pages of those articles. Discussing those issues with individual editors at their Talk pages does not build consensus. Likewise, my unwillingness to discuss those matters on my Talk page does not constitute my tacit assent to your assertions. User:HopsonRoad 15:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Electoral Systems Template
Hello New Speech Killer,

I have noticed that you have edited the electoral systems template. Your edit has been reverted as it was not in line with the sources. Please keep this discussion on the talk page. Additionally, please ensure than all of your edits are from 1 account only, and you do not edit while logged out. Editing from multiple accounts, and editing while logged out are forms of sock puppetry. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello New Speech Killer,

You have incorrectly stated on my talk page that I have not addressed your concerns in regards to the Electoral Systems Template. I have addressed your statement on the talk page. Please continue this discussion on the Electoral Systems Template Talk Page, not on my talk page. In this way, other editors can contribute to the conversation. User:HopsonRoad is one of the many editors who is assisting to undo your edits as A. you have not provides sources, B. you have not reached consensus, and C. you continue to misunderstand terminology.

Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You got question about you action and thinking on your page. You removed it twice. Do not tell me what I should do. You are free to start the conversation on talk page of the article with your arguments. I choose to ask you on you talk page but you do not answer. Does not seems you link to talk page of Template is any specific one. Be specific and to avoid confusion do not remove my conversations pieces from you talk page. --New Speech Killer (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 17:55, 11 March 2016 (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.

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JBL (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the complaints against you and have found your behavior to be in blatant contradiction to a multitude of our policies, guidelines, and community standards, to the degree that it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia and as such I have blocked you indefinitely. Further specifics can be found in my response at ANI, which is linked in your block log. This has gone on long enough and we're done tolerating it. If you would like to edit here, you need to at least familiarize yourself with our content and behavioral policies and promise to abide by them, although I'm doubtful your purpose here is fundamentally in accordance with this project's purpose. That will be for another admin to decide either way. Once you have familiarized yourself with our policies and guidelines, please consult the guide to appealing blocks for information on how to request an unblock. S warm   ♠  00:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

IP edits
For the record, please note recent edits from IP 131.104.138.198 which geolocates to the University of Guelph, Ontario, as does this one by 131.104.138.183 from immediately before the New Speech Killer account started editing the same article. This one by 99.225.1.74 geolocates to the same region of Ontario, as does this by 216.16.241.140 and this one by 216.171.96.18. It seems like this person has been making a concerted attempted to disrupt Plurality (voting) and similar articles since December. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Back with 216.171.96.18, which seems to be one they've had for a while (and now blocked for 3 months). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Now 131.104.139.244. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)