User talk:TheFallenCrowd

Welcome!

Hello, TheFallenCrowd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Kemp

If you wanted to renominate for AFD, you don't do it by overwriting a previous nomination. I'll make nomination #3 for you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About Arthur Kemp and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Kemp (3rd nomination)

Hi TheFallenCrowd,
I don't understand what you are doing with this article. The AfD was closed without a consensus to delete, but you appear to be gradually removing sourced content. What's going on?
--Shirt58 (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an entry on the article's talk page for you to read. In a nutshell, the subject meets none of the Wikipedia notability guidelines, and this was agreed by all in the AFD 3 discussion.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply. I would suggest that you please re-read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Kemp (3rd nomination). Thank you again. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it, actually I wrote most of it, if you look closely. Everyone there agreed that the subject was non-notifiable according to Wikipedia guidelines. That is undisputed and the vast majority of users voted for deletion. The only thing which was not agreed upon was what should replace the article, if anything.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

This is your last and only warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Arthur Kemp. Zad68 13:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On whose authority do you claim the right to block my editing?

The subject of the article in question meets none of Wikipedia's notability criteria, so why do you object to its editing?TheFallenCrowd (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the AFD discussion did not find that, but I am glad you are finally discussing this on the article Talk page. Zad68 14:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring at Arthur Kemp

Your recent editing history at Arthur Kemp shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 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. You have violated the 3RR at Arthur Kemp. Please self-revert, or this will be reported at WP:EWN. Zad68 15:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have merely tried to bring this article into line with Wikipedia Guidelines, and nothing else. The facts are obvious: the subject is not notable as a politician or as an author, and now you have threatened me with banning for simply trying to adhere to WP guidelines. What is your motivation? Can you supply any reason why this subject is notable as a politician or as an author, or under the General Notability Guidelines? A single reason? I have made an entry on the dispute resolution page to get the opinion of reasonable WP editors to have an input.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion you started about deleting the article did not yield the result you had hoped. You need to stop arguing it in the wrong venues. Trying to argue it on your talk page or the article talk page or WP:BLPN or by deleting the article content is disruptive. If you really want to pursue it you can take it to Deletion Review as you were told here. You appear to be unwilling to accept the consensus result, and I am unwilling to keep repeating the same responses to the same fallacious arguments you keep bringing up. This is your warning: Repeatedly going against consensus is considered disruptive editing and can lead to sanctions. Zad68 17:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arthur Kemp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Mail (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arthur Kemp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Mandela‎

The content is redundant as it's already mentioned in the section I listed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing the redundancy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User warning

Your recent editing history at Nelson Mandela 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.
By my count you have already exceeded 3rr today. Helen Online 19:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to continually delete the SACP quotation from their journal where they explained Mandela's SACP membership in detail? I am not engaged in any "edit war" -- it is you who are engaged in deliberate political censorship--and don't think people cannot see that. I will restore the section dealing with his SACP membership, and if you delete it again, I will report you to the Wiki staff.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that before you do, you read WP:NPA, WP:VANDAL, and in particular Help:Edit summary. Edit summaries like this [1] are hardly likely to help your case. I think that rather than accusing all and sundry of 'censorship' you might do better to do as you have been asked, and provide evidence from third-party sources that this news (if that is what it is) of Mandela's sometime membership of the SACP is as significant as you claim. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa's largest and most important Business newspaper, Business Day, has reported extensively on this matter over the last few days, and their coverage is already included in the new section on Mandela's Communist party membership. TheFallenCrowd (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Helen Online 07:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Treblinka

Dear TheFallenCrowd, I'm sorry for reverting your edit on Treblinka, but please read my rationale in talk and if you find the need to ask further questions about the source, I'll be happy to help with whatever I can. All best, Poeticbent talk 23:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Arthur Kemp, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. The text you replaced is not backed by the newspaper article which would need to state it clearly - you seem to be interpreting it. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Arthur Kemp may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

'breakthrough' in the Hani investigation on the basis of information provided by Mr Derby-Lewis.” ("Suspects held in Hani inquiry: Police confirm plot after five more arrests”, The Independent,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Arthur Kemp may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

'breakthrough' in the Hani investigation on the basis of information provided by Mr Derby-Lewis.” ("Suspects held in Hani inquiry: Police confirm plot after five more arrests”, The Independent,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Kemp

You continue to insert material which is not stated in the source, despite being reverted now by 2 editors. Please do not continue to do this - if you are so certain it is backed by the source, go to WP:RSN and see if others agree. Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. The article, which can be read by anyone, specifically reports on the arrest of Kemp and three others--and quotes a police spokesman as saying that the arrests were the result of information provided by Derby-Lewis. Please stop vandalizing the quote.~~

You have continued to reinstate this and refused to take this to WP:RSN, which I've now done. Please do not reinsert this without a consensus. In addition, you've labelled good faith edits removing the material as WP:Vandalism, a bad idea. You've been blocked for edit warring before. Dougweller (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ani

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to TheFallenCrowd. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 4 editors disagree with you - you are clearly editwarring to keep this in. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is you who is clearly editwarring on this. The material you have decided to remove has been in the article for over two years, and you have constantly edited and monitored the article over this period -- and only now, all of a sudden, have you "decided" to remove it, obviously out of a personal political bias. I will raise this with more senior people than yourself.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's just nonsense. It hadn't occurred to me not to trust the edit until recently. Removing material that misrepresents the source is routine and to call it political simply reflects on your view. Since 3 editors have reverted you and 3 have disagreed with you at RSN (4 separate editors), and a 5th has warned you below that you are edit warring, accusing others of editwarring is simply digging a deeper hole. Dougweller (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

If you revert at Arthur Kemp again without first obtaining consensus for your version I will block your account for edit warring. Tiderolls 21:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Your recent editing history at Arthur Kemp 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. 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. Dougweller (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TheFallenCrowd reported by User:Dougweller (Result: ). Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Arthur Kemp. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{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. Wifione ^Message 11:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious you tried to edit as an IP after you were blocked. It is also misleading to suggest that he wasn't in the UK before he used his ancestry visa as he clearly was. Dougweller (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are lying. I never used any IP address or logged in from any PC except my own. Where is your proof? How dare you accuse me of such a thing when you have no evidence whatsoever apart from your own obvious political bias?TheFallenCrowd (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheFallenCrowd. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents, you have been blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for reasons discussed on WP:AN/I. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. llywrch (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]