User talk:TXRD18

May 2014

Hello, I'm Dwpaul. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Carl Westcott because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Dwpaul ^Talk 20:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Carl Westcott. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. This article is not about Carl Westcott's son. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Carl Westcott. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Carl Westcott 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. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Carl Westcott. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Carl Westcott. 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.  kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Also: Claiming that Westcott is both an alcoholic and a fugitive based on the sources that you provide is most definitely a BLP violation, consider this as your final warning. If you add any more of that nonsense, you will be blocked indefinitely from editing. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)