User talk:Bigjohndordoba

March 2015[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Adnan Januzaj, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. JMHamo (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Adnan Januzaj. 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. JMHamo (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Januzaj[edit]

You've obviously got some sort of agenda against Januzaj. I can't fathom it myself, but I advise you to stop making unconstructive edits and try being a positive influence on Wikipedia instead. – Pee Jay 17:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Daily Mail is not a reliable source, so even if the content wasn't trivial, it still couldn't be included as it's not adequtely sourced. Giant Snowman 18:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it couldn't be more trivial either. The intersection of cards and goals is one of the most preposterous stats I've ever heard of. – Pee Jay 19:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Adnan Januzaj. JMHamo (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Adnan Januzaj 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. QED237 (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]