Hello, Over the Orwell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Hi. Thank you for your edits on the Ben Gummer article. I notice that you have only ever edited that article, and would like to point you to the area Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. JASpencer (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I have found nothing else that I want to edit at the moment! I will in future. I notice that my edits keep getting changed almost immediately which is annoying.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Over the Orwell (talk • contribs) 19:46, 27 October 2013

Fine. I'd also like to point you to some other guidance. WP:BLP (Biographies of Living People) - which is around being extremely careful about what you say about living people (for example implying that they are responsible for losing hospital services) and NPOV (Neutral Point of View) which would apply to saying that someone on 49% of an online poll is "on the wrong side of public opinion". Wikipedia tends to be very serious about ensuring that subjects are covered accurately and fairly. JASpencer (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must also remind you that Wikipedia states that "All articles should be balanced to convey an impression of the various points of view on a subject". The Gummer article reads as if it was written by a friend, relative or Tory party activist. I am adding some well needed balance to the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Over the Orwell (talk • contribs) 21:42, 5 November 2013

Baffled why you recently deleted the links to the reviews on Amazon that didn't think much of Gummer's book. It is perfectly natural, reasonable and balanced to mention that some readers did not like the book as well as mentioning those that did like it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Over the Orwell (talk • contribs) 21:38, 9 November 2013

Amazon users are not a reliable source for a book review. You have already been advised of this. Find a reliable source (eg a literary supplement, a literary review, a newspaper review.) Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 22:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Amazon users are not a reliable source for a book review" - in your opinion. I am from Ipswich and would argue the average Ipswich resident is far more likely to get a review from the world's largest online retailer than the Times Literary Supplement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Over the Orwell (talk • contribs) 14:18, 12 January 2014‎

I am also from Ipswich and take my reviews from recognised literary critics or recognised experts in particular scholarly fields, and not from any old scrote with an internet connection and an account with "the world's largest online retailer." Your insinuation that people from Ipswich are unsophisticated, tractor-driving Sun readers says more about you than it does about Ipswich, unfortunately. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 16:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will open a discussion at Talk:Ben Gummer to work through your - and anyone else's - concerns about the page. Please join in. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 23:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have disregarded the above invitation, leaving myself and other editors going out of our way to find some way of accommodating your fringe POV while you snipe at articles from the sidelines. The invitation to enter into genuine, constructive dialogue still stands, however. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 17:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you try to work through this. I have seen a number of editors burn out as they wanted to "tell the world the(ir) truth" seeing this as adding balance. This is particularly the case with BLPs (Biographies of Living People) where Wikipedia has got in a lot of trouble in the past for putting in opinion pieces on a person. I'm here if you need any help as you could become a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. JASpencer (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Demiurge1000. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Tom Brake seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at all recent MP edits, you may be blocked from editing. Leaky Caldron 14:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - my changes are not disruptive, just stating a factual piece of information. If you look at various politician's pages you will see they often state a politician's stance on a particular issue e.g. Iraq War, gay marriage, the European Union, abortion etc. My entries on foodbanks are in a similar vein so please do not delete them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Over the Orwell (talk • contribs) 14:15, 12 January 2014

Oh, and I also notice one single person has changed them all back. That seems rather odd.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Over the Orwell (talk • contribs) 14:16, 12 January 2014

Please read this important content guideline WP:N and consider whether adding single issues are genuinely considered encyclopaedic or maybe just an editor making a point. Do you intend to add a line to all those MPs who did vote for the foodbank issue? If not, ask yourself why you are not intending to do so. Leaky Caldron 14:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Leaky Caldron 14:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 22:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring on multiple articles. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Over the Orwell, I am an administrator at Wikipedia. One of my duties is to prevent disruption to articles. I read your comments at Blackberry Sorbet's talk page about you and your son, so I wanted to give you another analogy to mull over. Let's assume you start a new job as an editor at an offline encyclopedia. And before you even know the ropes, you start changing copy to multiple entries. Your more experienced colleagues tell you to stop, but you persist because you believe you're right. What do you think will happen to you? My guess is you'll be fired. Perhaps they'll be kind and discipline you in some way before moving to termination. Effectively, that's what you've done at Wikipedia. You've charged in here with this one piece of information and injected it into many articles. Other editors have told you to stop and warned you, but you continued anyway. That is the reason I've blocked you. There are many reasons why other editors removed your material. I'm not going to go into them all at this time, although some have already been pointed out to you. Take a look at the top of this page where there is a Welcome message. That has links to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. I suggest you read some of those before continuing to edit in a "controversial" manner.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the place to discuss with your son and consider making an entry, if appropriate: Food_bank#United_Kingdom. Leaky Caldron 23:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to look into the issue more closely before adding the simple statement that "296 MPs... voted against an investigation into hunger and increased foodbank use in the UK in December 2013." The vote was actually against a motion proposed by Maria Eagle, which proposed a number of different measures including a freeze on energy prices, a water affordability scheme, measures to end abuses of zero hours contracts, incentives to companies to pay a living wage and abolition of the so-called bedroom tax. Some of the MPs who voted against the proposal have said that they did so because of these other measures (eg Sarah Newton has stated that she could not vote in the affirmative because of the energy price freeze.) Andrew George similarly said he refused to back a motion "to play party politics with a matter which affects so many local people. The fact that foodbanks exist and are necessary is an indictment on both the previous Labour Party and the present Tory-led Governments. I deplore those who seek to make party political capital on the backs of those who find themselves having to depend upon foodbanks." Also, Eagle's motion did not call for "an investigation into hunger and increased foodbank use" but instead for the publication of the results of research already commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. And the reports I've read state the motion was defeated by 294 votes to 251 and not 296. This is a complex issue and requires a far more nuanced and balanced treatment than simply adding an ill-informed statement in an attempt to portray some MPs in a more negative light. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 13:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

..Or this The Trussell Trust. Leaky Caldron 15:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a FACTUAL entry onto this page. Not slander, not incorrect information, not insinuation. I have recorded a FACT that is taken from Hansard which is the official record of UK Parliament. It is in the public domain and MPs know this and must accept that their votes and speeches will be noted and recorded and may be used in the media and on the internet.

I have treated other editors with courtesy and respect by not amending or deleting any information on this page. I would be grateful if you could treat me with the same courtesy and respect and not delete this FACTUAL information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Over the Orwell (talk • contribs) 21:11, 17 January 2014

Please see this WP:BALASPS. Leaky Caldron 21:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Amess. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. Getting blocked for trying to force your preferred content into dozens of articles, and then coming right back doing the same again, indicates some quite serious problems with your approach. I suggest you take it a lot more slowly. WP:DR gives some ideas about dispute resolution. Start there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to David Amess.  —Josh3580_talk/hist 21:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 02:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.  Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for resuming your edit war after expiration of your last block, putting in the same material into many, many articles based on the report at WP:AN3. If you return to Wikipedia after this block and this pattern continues, the next block will be indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, although you were blocked for a good reason - edit warring is immensely disruptive - I am concerned that two weeks was a long time. You can discuss things on your talk page if you want. I know a lot of editors tend to flounce off (and this is usually a tacit admission of guilt to be honest) do try to learn what can be done. If you think of the amount of energy you've spent in order to get nowhere, think of how the energy could be better directed. JASpencer (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your interest, and your son's, the definitive account of the Parliamentary debate is here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131218/debtext/131218-0003.htm and the next few pages.

There is a list of the MPs' votes at the end - as someone else said, 294 rather than 296 - and you can see that the motion as proposed (in Maria Eagle's initial speech) included a ragbag of different topics, not purely food banks: "... further calls on the Government to bring forward measures to reduce dependency on foodbanks, including a freeze on energy prices, a water affordability scheme, measures to end abuses of zero hours contracts, incentives to companies to pay a living wage and abolition of the under-occupancy penalty."

If your son is interested in the parliamentary debate, he can read the whole thing here, and see who said what. I'm not suggesting that there is any virtue in adding the "X voted against this motion" statement in the way you were doing for some selected set of MPs. If a specific MP spoke in the debate and made a point which seems particularly noteworthy, it might possibly be appropriate to include something about it in the MP's Wikipedia article. It might be appropriate, when you come back, to add some mention of this debate to The Trussell Trust or Food_bank#United_Kingdom. If in any future editing you want to comment on MPs' statements or votes, Hansard or a respected news source (eg BBC or serious newspaper) are the authoritative sources: not an activist's blog. Here's something useful for your son to learn: an amazing amount of detailed, authoritative, information is accessible online, including Hansard's word-by-word accounts of debates in Parliament, though you might not find it by a quick Google search. PamD 14:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]