User talk:ARFCRFarfcrf

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. --Shakehandsman (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia In particular you should not be removing the references section. 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.

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. --Shakehandsman (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Melanie Johnson
What do you mean: "personal gain"??? Please clarify or retract this personal attack. --Crusio (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not the way it works, ARFCRFarfcrf. Proving one is innocent is rather difficult if the accusation is not clear. Please substantiate or I will report your unwarranted personal attack, which might very well get you blocked. On what grounds do you think I stand personally to gain from this and what exactly am I gaining? --Crusio (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been reading through the editing of this ‘shakehandsman’ and he seems to focus on Labour politicians and especially women and minorities – his editing appears to lack balance and be one sided according to comments written by many. It’s terribly sad that Wikipedia is being manipulated in this way! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.249.100.35 (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

unexplained removal of sourced material
Please explain why you keep removing this. It's sourced and factual correct, if you persist in removing sourced information from articles you may be barred from editing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you persist in removing sourced information, you will be blocked. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is how it works, we do not take your word it is incorrect, you provide us a newer better source that indicates it's incorrect. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —C.Fred (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)