User talk:Nonartinfo

December 2013[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Nicholas Serota. 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. Thank you. Hitro talk 20:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Nicholas Serota, you may be blocked from editing. Hitro talk 20:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Nicholas Serota with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Josh3580_talk/hist 20:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:ALIVE

Leaving the disputed facts in place while removing the sources is not constructive, regardless of whether the subject is a living person or not.[1] —C.Fred (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

kindly read the actual changes as you are mistaken Nonartinfo (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How, exactly, is the BBC not a reliable source? Please explain and do not remove the text again. —C.Fred (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

read the changes, that section was moved up the article. again, read the changes Nonartinfo (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the changes. I do not see Stuart Peterson Wright's calls for Serota to be sacked anywhere in the revised article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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. Josh3580_talk/hist 21:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonartinfo, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Nonartinfo! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Nonartinfo. You have new messages at HitroMilanese's talk page.
Message added 21:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hitro talk 21:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You removed a reference to this Independent article which checks out. Accordingly, your edits are disruptive.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for abuse of editing privileges. 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. —C.Fred (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]