User talk:81.100.215.14

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.

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war 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.[1] 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)

May 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31h to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war 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 {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Template:Z9 The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:81.100.215.14 reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result: 31h). EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Answering your question about the meaning of "anon"

"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)