User talk:SurfRI

Welcome![edit]

Hello, SurfRI, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome!

Reference Errors on 7 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Americans for Peace and Tolerance page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015[edit]

Your recent editing history at Newton Public Schools shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. SQGibbon (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Public Schools[edit]

Hello,

This is in regard to your edits at Newton Public Schools.

1. You made a bold edit going into way too much detail over a controversy that did not, apparently, make the news beyond the local region. Please read WP:BRD which tells us that you made a bold edit, I reverted, and now we discuss it on the talk page with any other interested editors until we reach a consensus view on how to handle the material you wish to add to the article. This discuss should take place on the article's talk page at Talk:Newton Public Schools.

2. Please read WP:3RR which says that editors should never edit war. If you do, as the warning above indicates, you will be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is built on editor's achieving consensus.

3. Please read WP:MOS which is the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Specifically MOS:HEAD which states: The provisions in § Article titles (above) generally apply to section headings as well (for example, headings are in sentence case, not title case).

4. Please read WP:NPOV about how to maintain a neutral point of view. Specifically read up WP:UNDUE which talks about undue weight. Your edit adds far more information about the subject than what is already in the article. This is a red flag which indicates you have an agenda to push.

5. Please also read WP:RS (reliable sources) to understand what are considered good sources for Wikipedia.

6. And since we are dealing with living people you should also read WP:BLP which lays out the very strict policies we have to follow when reporting on living people.

7. And finally, please read WP:EL (external links) and specifically WP:ELYES which allows for external links to sites that contain neutral material. The site you linked to might be factual (I don't know or care) but is most certainly not neutral in any sense of the word.

If you have any questions you can reach me on my talk page. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above still applies[edit]

Nuff said? Any further editing of the article on this subject without gaining a consensus for your inclusion first Will be dealt with. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. John from Idegon (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Public Schools[edit]

Hi. Partly due to your editing history and your participation on its talk page, the article has now been locked down so that only administrators can edit it. Please review the other comments on your talk page above. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, you may be blocked from editing. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point as you have been persistently doing at Talk:Newton Public Schools you will be blocked from editing. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]