User talk:Floating philosopher

Hi Floating philosopher! I see you are deleting sourced content that are especially articles related to the Islam religion in Sri Lanka. You can't remove sourced content without giving a reasonable response. Try rather to create a discussion on the talk page instead of deleting sourced content. Peace Xenani (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Islam in Sri Lanka, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Antan O 12:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, What do you mean it was not "Constructive". Please refer the guidelines as there is nothing in it that talks about subjective terms like "Constructive". Best Regards,

Discuss at talk page if you disagree and see useful way of editing articles. Removal could be interpreted as vandalism, especially removing references. Also see WP:3RR --Antan O 13:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You have removed references that I have made, and that too could be interpreted as vandalism. Please provide evidence before reverting my changes. Floating philosopher

ANI notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. I did not start the thread, but I want to make sure you were notified. —C.Fred (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. Antan O 07:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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:Floating_philosopher reported by User:Pharaoh of the Wizards (Result: ). Thank you. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:02, 18 December 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand about edit warring and agree not to engage in it further. I believe the edits I was making are legitimate, however other users were undoing it without talking to me and giving me a reason. This is the reason I felt I need to re submit my changes. I felt it imperative to change discredited text citations from decades ago with modern scientific information, and them undoing it seemed like I was loosing my carefully crafted compositions. I have followed admin advice to use the talk page, but despite me doing so, other users were still undoing my edits without responding to me on the talk page. I am new to Wikipedia and still do not know how to report users, and I believe they are taking advantage of this. I will stop edit warring and state all changes i make in the talk page before i make an edit.Thank You.

Decline reason:

I note that since you posted this you have been blocked for sockpuppetry. Please also address that in a future unblock request. only (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2017 (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.

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 5 days for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Floating philosopher. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. GAB^gab 21:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]