User talk:Commonsenseyes

May 2016

Your recent edits to Piotr Nowak could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Piotr Nowak. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Piotr Nowak. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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. 331dot (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Commonsenseyes, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

331dot (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Commonsenseyes reported by User:331dot (Result: ). Thank you. 331dot (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~ Rob^Talk 18:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked

Three things that are problematic. First is your legal threat at [1]. Anything that resembled a threat to use legal action means you can't edit while the threat is active. That is from the Foundation's own rules. Second, you seem to be used an IPV6 to get past the WP:3RR policy, meaning you are not only guilty of sockpuppetry, but of edit warring. Those alone are worth two weeks worth of block to prevent this type of behavior from happening again. You may also have a conflict of interest, but I can't swear to it. Having a COI isn't necessarily against policy, but it brings up some responsibilities on your end, and it is preferred you use the talk page instead of directly editing the article, if you do indeed have a COI. Regardless, until you retract the legal comment, you will be blocked for an indef period. Once you do, I'm recommended you stay blocked for at least the two weeks I spoke of. Any admin is free to modify my actions without prior permission. To read about getting unblocked, see WP:GAB. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)