User talk:72.89.241.5

August 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Pamela Geller has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 16:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Pamela Geller, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Please review Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, which begins "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Gyrofrog (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Pamela Geller. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You have been mentioned in a post on the Administrator's Noticeboard. See the relevant discussion here. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Pamela Geller, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have persistently edit warred to maintain your own point of view in the article, both from your registered account and anonymously, and have shown no sign at all of willingness to discuss with other editors. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)