User talk:88RIK
July 2013
Your recent editing history at Lynton Crosby shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
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. Ericoides (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.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. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
88RIK (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand the reason for this block. I will restrict activities to ammending and enhancing content for the benefit of all readers of Wikipedia. If I find content of the nature that I consider biased or one sided I will seek evidence and references of this and discuss the topic in the talk section. The edit war was not intentional and we the article in question as it stands is conclusively one sided. However rather than argue these points I would sooner enhance it and many others to contain information that has been omitted. The page in question for examples lacks the subject's current and recent political activity in both London and the UK. It only briefly mentions for major election campaigns in Australia rather than providing any information about what connects the subject to the campaign. This is where I will focus my attention. Lesson learned and I would very much appreciate if you allowed me to rejoin the community as and Editor so I can begin adding beneficial information to this Encyclopaedia. Thanks.
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request as, although it demonstrates that you understand you were blocked for edit warring, it does address your use of multiple accounts. Please ensure any future requests address both the edit-warring and socking. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
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.
What do you have to say about the sockpuppetry? Toddst1 (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)