User talk:Ace Mathias

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Secretariat (horse), 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. Thank you. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 01:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
Did you add any references? Any edit of factual information WILL be deleted if there are no external references. Yes, sir. (Ace Mathias (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC))

Austinuity (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Secretariat (horse), you may be blocked from editing. Your sourcing is completely insufficient and fails to explain any significance. You have been told multiple times by multiple editors to stop adding this material. Montanabw (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please also be aware of the following:

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
 * Why do you persist in adding this material to the article when several editors say (1) it doesn't belong in that section and (2) it probably doesn't belong at all? Generally, when you add something to an article and another editor reverts your addition, you should not reinsert the same material. Instead, you should go to the article talk page and discuss the issue. See WP:BRD. What I'd like from you is a promise that you will not edit the article for at least 7 days. If you agree to that, you will avoid being blocked for edit-warring. Please comment at WP:ANEW. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Warning. You failed to respond to my message above. However, I am not going to block you for edit-warring. You can read why at WP:ANEW. However, if you edit the article again in the next 7 days, you will be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Moved from my talk
Ace, you posted at my talk page, here is your question and my answer: Being new to the Internet, I'm ignorant--not malacious(or "sock"). Obviously you gentlemen aren't seeing my point: I think the fact that Secretariat in 2/3 of his races was in back and had to run farther that the other horses. I see that as a great achievement; you don't. You're the boss. My source was the DVD, The Life and Times of Secretariat, Part3--The Races, Secretariat.com, 2008. Thank you. Ace Mathias (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ace, first of all, you just pop in the random fact with no context as to who says it is particularly significant. Then, you pop it into the wrong section.  Then, you fail to discuss the matter and just keep doing the same thing over and over again.  The source MIGHT be reliable, but the information is mere trivia unless you have some outside source other than a hagiographic biography of the horse (i.e. like a respected sportswriter, or a respected handicapper -- not your opinion, not my opinion) which says that  this bit of trivia was a "great achievement."   Montanabw (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)