Hello, I'm Philip Cross. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Nichi Hodgson, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Philip Cross (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys,

I recently searched for a page of Brenton Harrison Tarrant and it seems that doesn't exist. This is a sensitive matter relating to a terrorist attack (which from my point of view is abhorrable but not everyone will agree with me). Also would like to add that I assume his page is none existent because of a political decision in New Zealand. So I open this talk to discuss if wikipedia should obey a political decisions or should be above that.

User:HelenHIL - I am not aware of any political decision in New Zealand that affects whether we have an article. It does not appear that anyone has attempted to write a detailed article. There is a draft at Draft:Brenton Tarrant that has not been submitted. If you want to discuss whether there should be a separate article, you should expand the draft, which in my opinion does not have enough information, and then submit the draft for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wp:nazi is not a policy, but wp:or is, as is wp:npov and wp:blp. So making accusations not in wp:rs about living people might well be lockable. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add wp:not. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Report or warn on their talk page, but do not use an article talk page for it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you. You seem to be more objective than the others. Don't you see an issue with not reporting about the Western propaganda in Ukraine? HelenHIL (talk) 07:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EvergreenFir (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Demetrios1993 (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2022 (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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. Demetrios1993 (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2022 (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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. Khirurg (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you have already violated 3RR at Ancient Macedonian language, but I noticed it only after I gave you the warning. Any further reverts are guranteed to result in a block. Not only that, but your edits are extremely POV and totally unacceptable. Khirurg (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You will be blocked very very soon... Within 24 hours HelenHIL (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]