User talk:FairleighJ

October 2015

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism, as you did to The Blitz, will not be tolerated. Vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked, although your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. Ban evasion, another sock of User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not HarveyCarter and I never said the UK started WWII, only that the RAF began bombing Germany on 11 May 1940 and not 15 May. Please at least correct that mistake in the article. This website is giving inaccurate information - the RAF actually began bombing Germany on 11 May 1940, not 15 May. (FairleighJ (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Your recent editing history 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. DVdm (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell the troll to stop reverting my sourced edits. (FairleighJ (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Why have I been blocked for trying to correct misinformation in articles on this site?FairleighJ (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed by CheckUser as a sock of HarveyCarter. Favonian (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2015 (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.