User talk:AngieWattsFan

Edit warring
Thank you for finally deciding to log in and use the account you had already created. But you are still asked to stop edit warring on articles, and start discussions first. Additionally, you are asked not to revert an edit that is reverting one of your previous edits (from any of your IP addresses or this account). Thanks. – anemone projectors – 16:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also please make sure you use this account from now on, as you should have done after you created it in the first place. – anemone projectors – 17:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Lucy Beale, 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. – anemone projectors – 12:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lucy Beale. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – anemone projectors – 09:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Lucy Beale. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Also please stop copying drafts from my userspace and putting them into mainspace. I will be reverting/deleting all of these. – anemone projectors – 09:31, 15 January 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. 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.

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Lucy Beale, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. – anemone projectors – 15:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for for going against consensus, edit warring, personally attacking other editors and generally being disruptive by disregarding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. – anemone projectors – 15:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

February 2013
Your recent editing history at Michelle Fowler shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. – anemone projectors – 22:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Tanya Branning. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: 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. – anemone projectors – 22:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Disambiguation link notification for February 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Cameron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Cameron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Huhne
You keep saying that a person automatically loses their membership on conviction, but I don't see a source for that. After my own investigation, I found that under the Federal Constitution, a person's membership may be withdrawn for bringing the party into disrepute. (Section 3.7(b)). The constitution for the English branch says there shall be a "rebuttable presumption" of bringing the party into disrepute if under an unspent conviction of a crime of dishonesty. (Section 7.2(i). There is a disciplinary procedure employed in such cases. We have no evidence he has either resigned or been expelled. Until we have a source, we should not claim there has been a change. -Rrius (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Your edits
First, reasons are not "excuses". Second, edit summaries are short, so it is not always possible, or even advisable, to put in every objection. Third, per WP:BRD, you made an edit, were reverted, and was (and is) time to convince other editors that your intended changes are correct. It is for you to gain WP:CONSENSUS for your proposed changes. I've started the discussion already, it is time for you to participate there. I can't see any benefit whatsoever to adding those images, but perhaps you can convince someone else. If you wish try, please do so at the talk page rather than through edit warring. -Rrius (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Cameron, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages David Davis and No Turning Back (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
Your recent editing history at Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010 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. –  Richard  BB  14:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
–  Richard  BB  14:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010
Please do not be belligerent in your edit summaries, as you were three times in this article. I will make changes if they are unsourced — which this one was. Fortunately, your re-addition provided a source (which is all I ever asked for), but there was really no need to make such a rude edit summary. Furthermore, please use the cite tool (under cite, on the right) when adding citations, so that they show up properly. Thanks. –  Richard  BB  10:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

In hindsight, I have reverted your addition. The citation did not support your claim. –  Richard  BB  10:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
–  Richard  BB  11:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN/I
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –  Richard  BB  10:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited London mayoral election, 2016, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Steve Reed and Atma Singh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Labour
There is a discussion on the talk page which you have yet to contribute to. If you do not wish to defend your position then do not be surprised when your edits are undone. —  Richard  BB  06:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. – →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  21:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at James Purnell, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Charles (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

James Purnell and his "partner"
Sorry - can I check what you're saying here. Your edit summary suggests that she's his ex-partner? I'm confused - the source is from 2009 for starters. Is there any documentation at all in the reliable source that says he currently has a partner at all? There must be - 2009 is a long time ago and, frankly, the source isn't great either (it's essentially gossip) - and there's clearly some ambiguity.

I find nothing in Who's Who at all. There must be some other current source - or certainly something more up to date.

You also by the way, need to be **very** careful about 3RR on this article. Given your history above you'd be in serious danger of losing editing privileges straight away. No one wants that to happen - so **go and find a source that's up to date** and I'd support the inclusion of the content. It's not hard to understand why this is important. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Given that I think you've probably just exceeded 3RR I strongly suggest you revert back to a stable version of the article until we can find a source. It'd help everyone and save all sorts of hassle. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. – →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  21:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but 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. (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 00:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rowenna Davis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Denham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to James Purnell. Thank you. – →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  00:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=561369986 your edit] to National Security Council (United Kingdom) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeremy Browne, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Environment, Orange Book and Conservative Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Phillip Collins


The article Phillip Collins has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. red dog six (talk) 03:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Phillip Collins, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Demos and Frank Field (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (Phillip Collins) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Phillip Collins, AngieWattsFan!

Wikipedia editor Barney the barney barney just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Remember to include references for WP:BLP - I have added Who's Who, which is one of the main sources you ought to check."

To reply, leave a comment on Barney the barney barney's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A page you started (Phillip Collins) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Phillip Collins, AngieWattsFan!

Wikipedia editor Barney the barney barney just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Also you spelt his name wrong"

To reply, leave a comment on Barney the barney barney's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Speedy deletion nomination of Philip Collins (journalist)


A tag has been placed on Philip Collins (journalist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —  Richard  BB  08:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, that's one of the most extreme good faith stretching speedy deletion nominations ever. Hopefully the reviewing admin will have some sense. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm Josh3580. I noticed that you recently removed some content from List of soap opera villains, with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  Josh3580 talk/hist 03:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on List of soap opera villains
Your recent editing history at List of soap opera villains 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.  Josh3580 talk/hist 04:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at List of soap opera villains, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  Rain  the 1  04:34, 4 January 2014 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you.  Josh3580 talk/hist 05:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Flat Out. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Josh3580 that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   09:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Josh3580. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   09:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. 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. only (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deano Wicks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Johnny Carter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zsa Zsa Carter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Johnny Carter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at List of soap opera villains, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  Rain  the 1  11:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Roxy Mitchell
For someone who has been blocked for edit warring, you should know better than to force an opinion rather than seeking consensus. You have had your unsourced edit regarding a marriage end date reverted at least twice on this article, and also at the accompanying article. Please enter into a discussion on the article's talk page and do not reinstate your position without support. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   03:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:List of soap opera villains, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   03:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As above, stop this. Divorce law is a real-world thing that cannot be applied to a fictional universe without making inferences that the programme has not shown. Stephenb (Talk) 10:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I noticed that you have reinserted the date again. I have reverted it as it is against current consensus. Please participate in the discussion on the talkpage or provide a valid source for your information. If you reinsert the date you're likely to be blocked for disruption, as you have received several warnings on this already. Bjelleklang -  talk 22:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blairism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matthew Taylor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Roxy Mitchell 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. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   03:06, 20 March 2014 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   22:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia  as a result of your . You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Bjelleklang -  talk 05:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014
Hello, I'm Rmosler2100. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Sean Slater, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. R mosler | ●   05:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia as you did to Sean Slater. The edit in reference is here: R mosler  | ●   06:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Alfie Moon 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.  Flat Out   let's discuss it  12:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Your continued edit warring at Alfie Moon, Roxy Mitchell and Sean Slater after being previously blocked for this is beyond comprehension.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  12:44, 12 April 2014 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  03:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring at Alfie Moon, Roxy Mitchell, and Sean Slater. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)