Hi Telanian7790! I noticedyour contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, thecontributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages ontalk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing!10mmsocket (talk)18:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look here -Talk:College of Policing - thanks.10mmsocket (talk)18:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again - perWP:BRD, please discuss your change on the article's talk page. --10mmsocket (talk)00:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWP:RS - blogs are not considered reliable sources. More importantly, seeMOS:LEAD - the lead paragraph of an article should be a summary of its content. There is nothing in the article's content about there being no defence in law. You would first need to establish your argument in the body of the article (with a better source) before adding it to the lead summary.10mmsocket (talk)00:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically,WP:BLOGS. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)01:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history atCollege of Policing shows that you are currently engaged in anedit 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 thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. Seethe bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts 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. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)13:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the advice, you have reverted again. All this could have been resolved at the article talk page. So escalation must follow. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)17:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. Thank you.John Maynard Friedman (talk)17:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked from editing for a period of48 hours foredit warring and violating thethree-revert rule, as you did atCollege of Policing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try todiscuss controversial changes and seekconsensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read theguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk)18:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While your account is suspended, you might find it useful to read thewp:bold, revert, discuss (WP:BRD) process. "I'm right, you're wrong, end of" does not work on Wikipedia, as the above transactions demonstrate. Please also readWikipedia:Five pillars, especially the fourth. You might also readwp:synthesis which in essence means that we rely onwp:independent sources to evaluate an event, and then we can report that evaluation: we avoid giving our own value judgements.

I don't doubt that your edits were made in good faith but so were those made by10mmsocket. I presume you have each read the same or similar sources but reached different conclusions about their meaning. So it must be reasonable to assume that if you two people have done that, then many others will do the same thing. The purpose of BRD is to tease out these differences. Can you find a form of words between you that explains the (mis)understanding for future visitors? Wikipedia works by co-operation and consensus, not by dictat. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)19:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.10mmsocket (talk)21:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history atTalk:College of Policing shows that you are currently engaged in anedit 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 thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. Seethe bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts 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.Schazjmd (talk)22:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know you mean well, and I know you probably know nothing about the underlying dispute on that page, but I find that a very frustrating response. I actually know all about BRD. This whole drama started when the other side violated it and refused to abide it. See me trying to enforce it here:[1]. Merely trying to enforce the rules in this away appears to have provoked Hippo and 10mmsocket to accuse me of dishonesty - baselessly and falsely. I complained about this and the result was that that part of the discussion should be closed. I find it very frustrating - and unfair - that I am the one being warned (for merely trying to enforce an administrative ruling) when the other side have blatantly violated BRD on the actual page itself and no-one seems to care!Telanian7790 (talk)22:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also cautioned 10mmsocket about edit warring. I fixed the RfC format, because the closed discussion templates incorrectly hid relevant RfC comments instead of just the disagreement between you and Hippo. I read theANI complaint, and there is no "administrative ruling", just a caution to you and Hippo to avoid bludgeoning discussions. Also, just so you understand,WP:BRD is an essay; it's a commonly used method for approaching disputes, not a rule or a policy or guideline that can be "violated" or must be "enforced". Please, you'll be much more productive on Wikipedia if you avoid treating content disputes as battles.Schazjmd (talk)22:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you say that content disputes should not be treated as battles, I just want to cry in frustration. Because I agree with you! I agree with you 100%. What I want to have are intellectually honest good faith discussions about improving Wikipedia. I really enjoyed, for example, this such discussion with Gusfriend (brief as it was):[2];[3];[4]. However, it is difficult not to see things as a 'battle' when the other side keep making personal attacks and accusations of dishonesty against you. That is precisely what has happened since your intervention. Hippo43 has ignored you and insisted on re-inserting his baseless accusations and personal attacks and just won't stop. This is what I complained about before. I just don't understand what I am meant to do to get him to stop.Telanian7790 (talk)08:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.10mmsocket (talk)14:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked from editing for a period ofindefinte forabusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts areallowed, butnot forillegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may bereverted ordeleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia'sguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Yamla (talk)15:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]