Thomttran

October 2010

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edits to User:Jaycook76 and User:Kylejumper may be offensive or unwelcome. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you. Arbor832466 (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are you adding the exact same information multiple times on the David Harmer article? Corvus cornix_talk 21:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Rather than add large blocks of commented-out text, I suggest you focus your edits on smaller blocks and explain how they will help the article on Talk:David Harmer before adding them. —C.Fred (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jerry McNerney, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Corvus cornix_talk 21:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Jerry McNerney, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. ⅊™ 03:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Jerry McNerney has been reverted, as it removed all content from the page without explanation. Please do not do this, as it is considered vandalism; use the sandbox for testing. If you think the page should be deleted, see here for what to do. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Kubigula (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Note that similar warring edits are coming from this account, Villarrealcnm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and possibly others. You may not [[WP:SOCK|abuse multiple accounts to avoid sanctions for edit warring or any other inappropriate edits. Any such edit from any account will lead to a block of the offending account and possibly the block of one or more of the additional accounts. —C.Fred (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Input needed

Your input is wanted here. Guoguo12--Talk--  19:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring via the use of multiple accounts, based on the contribution history and age of Linkedin46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —C.Fred (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

27.100.16.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Thomttran". The reason given for Thomttran's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts: apparent use of User:Linkedin46 to edit war on

• Blocking administrator: C.Fred (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Please note that this account has been directly blocked. You will need to request unblocking using the {{unblock}} template rather than {{unblock-auto}}. —C.Fred (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not create new accounts in an attempt to evade this block. Such action may lead to this account being indefinitely blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to David Harmer. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)