Hi Rambling Rambler! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of British Democratic Party (2013) several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:British Democratic Party (2013), please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. ——Serial 16:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I saw this as the non-free logo I uploaded is flagged for deletion. I don't know if I want to contest the deletion, but until 2014 the article did have better sourcing. User:Truenature12 incorrectly removed "dead links". I guess this is a reminder that articles can degrade over time due to misguided or biased edits.
Fences& Windows 20:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Plot armor, you may be blocked from editing. When a discussion closes as keep, as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot armor did, you are not allowed to immediately circumvent the deletion process and merge the page. There is a separate merging policy, which was also ignored. Considering the above warning, this looks like a pattern similar to edit warring. Please refrain from similar actions going forward. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 17:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
You reported user ShirtNShoesPls to AIV, but this report suggests that you don't have a sufficient understanding of Wikipedia's vandalism policy. The policy deals with vandalism in narrow sense, where disruption is the intended outcome. Good-faith edits that you disagree with on content- or policy-based reasons are not vandalism. You appear to have had previous disagreements with this editor, including a recent ANI report. I would encourage you to avoid reporting this editor further; if they're editing inappropriately, other editors will notice. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 14:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Your report is too long. Brevity is the soul of wit, and ANI favors comprehensive but compact reports over walls of text. I say you try and cut down your comment by half. Please note that I will add my piece once you have initiated the discussion; I have added my comment to the sandbox page. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 19:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
ShirtNShoesPls's continued disruption and CIR, which is easier for the passing ANI-stalker to swallow as a worthwhile discussion. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 19:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, it would seem the problem has been resolved. Let me know if you ever encounter something similar and want a second pair of eyes to give it a glance. Thanks for sticking with it despite the handful of frustrating switchbacks. You helped preserve the project from a great deal of disruption. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 01:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
While it is an old article that could be improved there are plenty of reliable sources out there so deletion is not justified. See Google Scholar and Google Books for sources. Wellington Bay ( talk) 12:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I've restored the sections and tagged them. This isn't a brand new article but a legacy article that was written when citation demands weren't the same so we normally wouldn't just delete material summarily. This is also a useful source Revolutionary History journal - also the book War and the International: History of the Trotskyist Movement in Britain, 1937-49 Wellington Bay ( talk) 13:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
As for deleting rather than tagging the sections- this presupposes that there are no sources when, in fact, there likely are and secondly if the first act is to delete then why do tags exist at all? Wellington Bay ( talk) 13:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
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. Savvyjack23 ( talk) 00:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Remove that “upset” Haiti bit and I’ll remove the entire comment, not just parts. 🏳 Savvyjack23 ( talk) 22:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Rambling Rambler! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of British Democratic Party (2013) several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:British Democratic Party (2013), please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. ——Serial 16:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I saw this as the non-free logo I uploaded is flagged for deletion. I don't know if I want to contest the deletion, but until 2014 the article did have better sourcing. User:Truenature12 incorrectly removed "dead links". I guess this is a reminder that articles can degrade over time due to misguided or biased edits.
Fences& Windows 20:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Plot armor, you may be blocked from editing. When a discussion closes as keep, as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot armor did, you are not allowed to immediately circumvent the deletion process and merge the page. There is a separate merging policy, which was also ignored. Considering the above warning, this looks like a pattern similar to edit warring. Please refrain from similar actions going forward. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 17:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
You reported user ShirtNShoesPls to AIV, but this report suggests that you don't have a sufficient understanding of Wikipedia's vandalism policy. The policy deals with vandalism in narrow sense, where disruption is the intended outcome. Good-faith edits that you disagree with on content- or policy-based reasons are not vandalism. You appear to have had previous disagreements with this editor, including a recent ANI report. I would encourage you to avoid reporting this editor further; if they're editing inappropriately, other editors will notice. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 14:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Your report is too long. Brevity is the soul of wit, and ANI favors comprehensive but compact reports over walls of text. I say you try and cut down your comment by half. Please note that I will add my piece once you have initiated the discussion; I have added my comment to the sandbox page. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 19:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
ShirtNShoesPls's continued disruption and CIR, which is easier for the passing ANI-stalker to swallow as a worthwhile discussion. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 19:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, it would seem the problem has been resolved. Let me know if you ever encounter something similar and want a second pair of eyes to give it a glance. Thanks for sticking with it despite the handful of frustrating switchbacks. You helped preserve the project from a great deal of disruption. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 01:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
While it is an old article that could be improved there are plenty of reliable sources out there so deletion is not justified. See Google Scholar and Google Books for sources. Wellington Bay ( talk) 12:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I've restored the sections and tagged them. This isn't a brand new article but a legacy article that was written when citation demands weren't the same so we normally wouldn't just delete material summarily. This is also a useful source Revolutionary History journal - also the book War and the International: History of the Trotskyist Movement in Britain, 1937-49 Wellington Bay ( talk) 13:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
As for deleting rather than tagging the sections- this presupposes that there are no sources when, in fact, there likely are and secondly if the first act is to delete then why do tags exist at all? Wellington Bay ( talk) 13:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
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. Savvyjack23 ( talk) 00:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Remove that “upset” Haiti bit and I’ll remove the entire comment, not just parts. 🏳 Savvyjack23 ( talk) 22:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)