User talk:Winston S Smith
September 2013[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Michael Lerner (rabbi) are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
October 2013[edit]
Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:Racism for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Also in Talk:History of the Jews in Poland EvergreenFir (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page.
- That's what I was trying to do, but clearly you three liberals aren't going to listen to non-liberal opinions. I will not be intimidated.Winston S Smith (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- First, Wikipedia is not your blog. Second, you are leaving messages on EvergreenFir's User page, not her/his Talk page. But please, don't be intimidated by the rules. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User:EvergreenFir, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Do not edit my use page EvergreenFir (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
== Attempts
Reply[edit]
1. Read WP:NOTFORUM. Users are allowed to remove non-talk page appropriate comments.
2. Do not edit my user page again. User are generally not allowed to edit other users' pages unless it's to remove rule-breaking material (see WP:UP#OWN). If you want to talk to me, do so on my talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- My comment was not general discussion of the topic, I clearly referenced the article. Your repeated attempts to remove my content constitute vandalism of Wikipedia because you did not provide an appropriate justification.Winston S Smith (talk) 03:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I and two other users seem to agree that your comment was forum-like. You asked no question. You complained about the article, but did not discuss how to improve it or what specific things need attention. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Talk:History of the Jews in Poland 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. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Notice[edit]
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]
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. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Notice[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Winston S Smith. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)