AnthonyMark00
If you want to delete the page or edit the title, send a message to the creator of the page
Mjs1991 (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks but im trying too.. but I'm still getting used to all this.. Wait are you even a real person or some kind of bot?
AnthonyMark00 (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
AnthonyMark00, you are invited to the Teahouse edit
|
Hi AnthonyMark00! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
November 2012 edit
As stated above, if you have a dispute over what belongs in Gail Riplinger, discuss that on the article's talk page, not in the article itself. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Gail Riplinger 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. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- As the admin who declined your AIV report, I feel that I should comment further, though I really don't have much new to add. As I indicated, Ian.thomson is not vandalizing. Vandalism has a very specific definition on Wikipedia: it means that someone is actively trying to damage Wikipedia. Even if you don't agree with Ian, he is still acting in what he sees as the best interests of Wikipedia. We assume good faith in the absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and there is no such evidence here. Moreover, after looking at it, I think Ian is right in the current dispute (though of course that is purely my opinion as an editor, not as an administrator): the link doesn't meet any of the criteria in the policy on external links. And he's right as well about edit warring: you need to stop adding in the link and discuss things on the talk page. Only when a consensus there has formed that the link is acceptable should you re-enter it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
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. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm WikiPuppies. I noticed that you recently removed some content from User talk:Sean.hoyland without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, WikiPuppies bark dig 18:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents notification edit
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)