User talk:123.231.82.172

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, 123.231.82.172, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to British Empire does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Marek.69 ^talk 16:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at British Empire. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JonC ^Talk 16:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

the changes made by me are constructive and factual.

there is an organized effort by pro western editors here to remove all statements (already discussed several times in talk page) about the British empire's occupation, and exploitation of other countries and its suppression of resistance in such countries.

denying facts by use of entrenched editorial power is taking place here . i am the latest victim of this

I actually meant to leave you the template Marek left above rather than the vandalism one but clicked the wrong button. It wasn't vandalism, but it was in breach of WP:NPOV. I'm sure you understand that words like "occupied" and "exploited" are loaded terms that only represent one point-of-view. For that reason, they're thoroughly inappropriate for the introduction. JonC ^Talk 16:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removing references to occupation and exploitation of colonies and suppression of resistance is not a neutral point of view. edit language if needed but do not remove references to such . british did exploit and occupy other countries . ppl in colonies did not have a say in how they were ruled. british did suppress resistance. but there is no reference to any such in article lead, but it refers to how sun shined all day on empire! i only tried to rectify this crucial and biased omission. this case already made in talk page several times through months and years by various ppl. all who made the case were blocked and banned. as such i am skeptical of your claim to inadvertently tagging me as a vandal. no doubt i would be blocked using such false excuses as well. but facts pile up of abuse of rules here by entrenched editors and resulting pro western bias of wikipedia articles 123.231.82.172 (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on British Empire. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 the 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 without further notice. -- DQ (t) (e) 16:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

i only tried to rectify a crucial and biased omission. refer my comment above. case for my editing already made in talk page several times through months and years by various ppl. all who made the case were blocked and banned. no doubt i would be blocked using false excuses as well. but facts pile up of abuse of rules here by entrenched editors and resulting pro western bias of wikipedia articles 123.231.82.172 (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule[edit]

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus.

There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). A revert means undoing the actions of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. There are certain exemptions to 3RR, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the Biographies of living persons policy; see below for details. The three revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means

I thought I would point this rule out to you, in case you are unaware of it.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 17:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i only tried to rectify a crucial and biased omission. refer my comment above. case for my editing already made in talk page several times through months and years by various ppl. all who made the case were blocked and banned. no doubt i would be blocked using false excuses as well. but facts pile up of abuse of rules here by entrenched editors and resulting pro western bias of wikipedia articles 123.231.82.172 (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i would like to point out that, when entrenched editors with an agenda (in this case pro western agenda) decide to exclude facts not in line with that agenda (in this case the fact that british did not allow ppl of empire any say how they were ruled, that they did in fact occupy and exploit other countries , that they did suppress resistance ) they falsely claim their agenda is 'consensus' and inclusion of facts 'unconstructive' etc. they then block and ban the ppl who include the facts, even though these banned and blocked ppl have long (in this case through years and months) made the case for inclusion of facts in talk page ( and in this case where no objections to inclusion of facts was ever made). viola! we have have an extremely biased pro western article omitting the basic facts. 123.231.82.172 (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at British Empire. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- DQ (t) (e) 03:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

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.