User talk:Antishill101

Andrew Housser
More than one editor disagreed with your addition to Andrew Housser. Please do not reinstate the material (it does not read encyclopedic and definitely needs revising), but rather proceed to talk:Andrew Housser and discuss proposed changes. Materialscientist (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Andrew Housser shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Materialscientist (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Andrew Housser. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Tide  rolls  01:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * When you are confronted by multiple editors on multiple pages reverting your edits and requesting discussion, that is an indication that you need to slow down and engage with the community. To proceed unilaterally gives the appearance of pushing a point of view and editing to make a point.  This may not have been your intention, but the lack of discussion in the face of several different (more experienced editors) requesting an explanation of your edits only serves to hamper the liklihood that your edits will be kept.  Please understand that this project operates on collaborative editing and that discussion and consensus decide what content is added to the article mainspace.  Tide  rolls  01:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Get a Clue & Life
You would think at this point you and your company would get over whatever beef you have with the pages I work on. You claim I am a shill for them, whatever that means, yet you make it even more obvious that you are some competitor of theirs or perhaps a mad customer. Personally, I don't care. I only watch those pages because they are some of the first I worked on. Perhaps your beef is with me and not them? Either way, your vandalism attempts are futile and always have been. If you have a problem, there are much easier and more constructive ways of relaying it. WikiPedia is not for this and as long as you keep this up, I will give you something to do and revert your edits. If you wanna be constructive, I can help you. Perhaps you don't understand WikiPedia's guidelines and standards. Elementrider77 (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)