User talk:25162995

Haggis

Please bring the changes you wish to do to the talk page and do not indulge in pointy edits. The fact is that haggis is currently the national dish of Scotland, this is not historical information and does not belong in the historical section. Recent discoveries about an English recipe book does not change this. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The refrence to it being a Scottish National dish is not in contention." In which case would you please replace this text in the lead. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask you to stop editing this article and bring the changes you wish to make to the talk page. I have concerns over a number of the changes you have done. Edit warring is not productive. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. This is exactly the kind of discussion we should be having before you start reverting what has already been changed. The point is that you have left the article with the suggestion in the lead that because an English recipe book mentions haggis before any recorded Scottish mention, this casts doubt on its Scottish origins. The cited text of the book say nothing about the origins of the dish. The history section covers the possible origins (which are inevitably indeterminable) in a far clearer manner. Please revert your edits and bring the changes you wish to do to the talk page and stop edit warring. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:English def leg.JPG

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:English def leg.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Please use the talk page to discuss controversial edits --Snowded ^TALK 13:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. on English Defence League You are constantly reinserting material and not discussing matters on the talk page. Discussing matters means reaching a consensus not simply making a statement and then immediately reverting the material --Snowded ^TALK 14:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation report made here --Snowded ^TALK 14:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page English Defence League. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warring, 3RR violation and disruptive editing. 55 hours

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Canterbury Tail talk 15:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

25162995 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I fully understand that i have broken the 3rr rule and appologise for this but if you take a look at the EDL discussions page you will see that i have been trying to take part in constructive debating to resolve the issue. I would ask if you would consider the removal of my block for this reason. Many thanks

Decline reason:

You have a history of edit-warring and should know by now that it's unacceptable. The means of discussing content should be through Bold, Revert, Discuss, not Bold, Revert, Revert, Revert. There is also Dispute Resolution, but insisting on your own version before consensus is reached is disruptive. Rodhull andemu 15:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Another review: agree with Rodhullandemu. You were trying to discuss, but discussion only helps when people stop reverting. You kept reverting. Discussion is supposed to show you are willing to listen, want to be heard, and are going to stop fighting. Especially in a case like this where you are the only one supporting your edits while many others oppose them. If you don't stop reverting, you aren't discussing, you're just saying things to justify your continuing edit war. Mango juice^talk 15:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder (Warning)

Please do not start edit warring on the EDL article again. Discussion should take place on the talk page, or a noticeboard (such as WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN) if that fails. See WP:DR. Thanks. Verbal chat 13:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise I'm repeating myself, but if you disagree with me and other editors about NPOV, then post your thoughts on WP:NPOV. Please let us know at the article talk if you do this. Thanks, Verbal chat 14:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "libel"

RE this comment on WP:WQA: "I would also like to remind you that your comment is libelous in a court and can be classed as a defamation of character so please watch your remarks." Using legal terms like libel, court, and defamation can be considered a legal threat and is one strike blocking offence; see here WP:NLT. My suggestion would be that you remove that line (not strike, just remove) and replace it with nothing or a comment how you'd rather they didn't cast aspersions on your motivations. Please do this as soon as possible. Verbal chat 14:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry about getting your name wrong. Verbal chat 14:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help myself

Manner= How someone behaves, their attitude. Manor= A country house, Where a cockney geezer might hang out. Sorry, but you use this word alot.--Alchemist Jack (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably true. I shouldn't have mentioned. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]