User talk:62.45.158.228

November 2018[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Clerical fascism, you may be blocked from editing. GenoV84 (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Clerical fascism. GenoV84 (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Clerical fascism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 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. Longhair\^talk 12:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as done at Clerical fascism.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Longhair\^talk 12:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

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

Request reason:

I was just trying to post a comment on your talk page Long Hair in which I said I had no desire to continue what looks to be an edit war. My comment said: I will stop. I hope you can resolve this matter. I have no desire for an edit war. I never made any threats. I warned him he was committing vandalism. He had many highly misleading additions to Clerical Fascism which were poorly sourced. He clearly gave his own interpretation to the sources and tried to give a misleading impression. I removed this and he kept accusing me of vandalism. I explained the edits on the talk page yet he ignored me. Eventually I decided to compromise and make additions with proper sources that would make his edits less confusing. He then removed my additions and sources. I tried to discuss this on his talk page and he deleted it and called it vandalism and continued deleting my well sourced additions. His main criticism was that it didn`t make the Catholic Church look back. Only then did I warn him that what he was doing was vandalism and I followed wiki guidelines in doing so. When he continued and removed the warnings I reported him as again the guidelines instructed me to do. I hope you can check the Clerical Fascism article as well as the comment page and compare our sources and arguments.

Decline reason:

Both of you were blocked for edit warring. It expires in less than twelve hours. When you return, please discuss on the article talk page, and if you can't reach consensus, follow the suggestions for dispute resolution. Katie^talk 00:53, 14 November 2018 (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.

Your block[edit]

1. You arrived at my talk page once I warned you for edit warring at your talk page.
2. While typing my reply to you, you again edit warred reverting the same content I'd warned you about previously.
3. Both parties have been blocked. You for resuming while awaiting my response, the other for refusing to engage in discussion after you at least tried. Another administrator will review your block from here, but all I can say is, once warned, why continue knowing a block was the next available option to solve the current problem? -- Longhair\^talk 13:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn`t know you were typing the reply. I merely meant to respond to the edit warring by GenoV84 and I thought you didn`t know the full context. When you said on your page that we both needed to stop, I wrote a reply saying I would comply but it turned out I couldn`t post because I had been blocked. I apologise for my stupid actions. I have tried to discuss the matter with GenoV84 on many occasions, but he refused to respond on the talk page of the article, simply called all my edits vandalism, and deleted my attempts to discuss this on his talk page and called that vandalism also. 62.45.158.228 (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.