Bran488
Edit war
edit
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. WWGB (talk) 04:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Polling comments
editHi Bran488, you made some comments about polling on the Murugappan Family asylum talk page which I have moved to the Refugee polling discussion. Hope you are ok with this as the comments appear more relevant to that discipussion, rather than the Lawyer discussion. If not feel free to reverse. Ilenart626 (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
September 2021
edit
When you're reverted, especially by multiple others, you need to stop and discuss the change you want to and continuing discussing until there is a consensus for or against the change you want to make. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
When you're discussing content with other editors you need to ensure that your remain focused on the content being discussed rather than on your opinions of other editor's motivations and beliefs as you did in this edit ("being based on politically motivated actions"). Additionally, even though you believe that you have "clearly and appropriately discussed" your proposed change on the talk page, you have not yet convinced other editors to gain a consensus for the change. At this stage, there is consensus against having "alleged and unsubstantiated" in the article so you need to work on convincing others that it should be there not dismissing their policy-based views. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public. You may instead email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en
wikimedia.org with your username and appeal.Administrators: CheckUsers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. Therefore, a Checkuser must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing checkuser blocks without permission or the prior approval from a checkuser risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).
Please see the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bgtips1001 for more information. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)