User talk:O0pandora0o

RE: Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse protection

Thank you for your query on my talk page. I opted for semi-protection on the Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse article because that should be enough to stop any unregistered/IP editor intent on disruption. Additionally, semi-protection will prevent edits by any non-autoconfirmed account, such as the SPA accounts Donald VX (talk · contribs) and XQO (talk · contribs) that previously targeted the article. Looking at the article's edit history, virtually all disruptive edits since September 2009 were made by either unregistered or non-autoconfirmed accounts, so semi-protection seems like an appropriate, proportional response that will still allow productive editors like you to improve the article. Please let me know if you have any other questions or issues. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, if disruption persists after one protection expires, the next protection is of a longer duration. While administrators have the option of protecting an article with a custom time period (such as the ten days I used), the standard duration lengths are 1 day, 3 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year. The rapidly expanding durations generally result in vandals getting bored, moving on, or just forgetting about their target. If IPs and/or newly registered accounts continue to disrupt the article after the current protection expires, just let me know and I will be glad to re-protect it for a suitably longer period of time. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up; I have re-protected the article. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: Thanks!

No problem :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets are no fun

This page has been semi-protected. Going forward, I might suggest employing WP:RBI, with an extra-heavy dose of the I. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also protected your user page since it is being targeted. Let me know if you want the protection settings adjusted. CT Cooper · talk 09:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

Your recent editing history at Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 17:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other person is likely Tile Join. The Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse page, my userpage and my talk page have been attacked by Tile Join often, and on the Bethel page, it's always to add one single word. This word was discussed at length in the talk page, and was discarded. There is no reason for it to be there. I won't re-undo User:Elsebeen's vandalism again, but you need to know it has to be stopped. o0pandora0o (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]