|
-- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 11:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Marco Polo's birthplace. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
Dougweller (
talk)
09:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from
Marco Polo. When removing text, please specify a reason in the
edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's
talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the
page history. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
RepublicanJacobite
The'FortyFive'
15:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to
Marco Polo, you may be
blocked from editing.
RepublicanJacobite
The'FortyFive'
15:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
You have been warned about edit warring already on one article, I suggest you not begin edit warring in another article. I have seen the talk page discussion, and you do not have consensus for your changes. Stop removing cited information. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 16:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
note To properly understand aboove comments by Republican read here:
Disregard that, he sucks! 66.25.190.53 ( talk) 16:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. After your Single purpose editing, your warnings and your victimisation of an editor who has been in a long term conflict with various IP socks, along with your name implying that you are those IPs I am convinced your are only here to disrupt wikipedia and am blocking you indefinitely. This edit giving a flower and refering to an editor's mother [1] using Italian is particularly nasty based on my knowledge of the history of the conflict in this area. This sort of nonsense should be given no second chances and has no place on wikipedia. While I am outlining these issues you are almost certainly a sock per WP:DUCK. Polargeo ( talk) 15:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
|
-- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 11:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Marco Polo's birthplace. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
Dougweller (
talk)
09:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from
Marco Polo. When removing text, please specify a reason in the
edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's
talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the
page history. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
RepublicanJacobite
The'FortyFive'
15:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to
Marco Polo, you may be
blocked from editing.
RepublicanJacobite
The'FortyFive'
15:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
You have been warned about edit warring already on one article, I suggest you not begin edit warring in another article. I have seen the talk page discussion, and you do not have consensus for your changes. Stop removing cited information. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 16:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
note To properly understand aboove comments by Republican read here:
Disregard that, he sucks! 66.25.190.53 ( talk) 16:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. After your Single purpose editing, your warnings and your victimisation of an editor who has been in a long term conflict with various IP socks, along with your name implying that you are those IPs I am convinced your are only here to disrupt wikipedia and am blocking you indefinitely. This edit giving a flower and refering to an editor's mother [1] using Italian is particularly nasty based on my knowledge of the history of the conflict in this area. This sort of nonsense should be given no second chances and has no place on wikipedia. While I am outlining these issues you are almost certainly a sock per WP:DUCK. Polargeo ( talk) 15:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)