User talk:BLZebubba


 * }

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=562548706 your edit] to List of surviving Hawker Hurricanes may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Alansohn. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Toms River, New Jersey 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: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! ''Whatever the source is of an individual's notability -- whether professional wrestling or mixed martial arts - is neither disparaging nor a justification for removal of sourced content. '' Alansohn (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2014
Your recent editing history at Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II‎ 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. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - BilCat (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There's not much arguing with vandals, especially professionals with an overt agenda (to apparently allow only "positive" information about the topic at hand, that they apparently determine), which is what the reverter(s) of my information qualify as, given that the information I supply is factual, not original research, and is properly sourced to highly reputable publishers. I've pointed this aspect out to them and asked that they cease their vandalism. If they remove my remarks again I'm going to ask that the page be protected after I reverse any reversion by them.


 * I'll see what i can do about raising other contributors to this article to weigh in and form a true consensus, but I have no control over that.

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Warning about personal attacks and edit warring
I appreciate you dont agree with some of the other editors at Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II but please refrain for edit warring on the article and using personal attacks in your edit summaries and talk page discussion. Calling others liars and accusing them of working for the company is clearly bad faith. Also note just because you dont agree doesnt make other editors changes vandalism. So dont edit war, make a reasoned argument on the talk page, dont attack other editors and dont use the vandalism word when it is not called for. If you continue to attack others and edit war it may be seen as being disruptive and you may have your editing rights removed, please take note and take care, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. 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. - Ahunt (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2014 (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.


 * I am not trying to engage in an edit war; I am trying to restore the article to its pre-vandalized state.


 * In contrast with the editor Fnlayson, I tried to communicate with him first at both his User Talk page and the article Talk page (i.e. after his first edit but before my reversion of his edit) - to explain my reversion of his edits to my valid, sourced and demonstrably true remarks.


 * It should be noted that Fnlayson made no effort to use the Talk page before his original edit of my remarks. Since then I have received a response from him but not a valid explanation of why his edits needed to be made, and I have told him of my objections - again, on the Talk page and at his User Talk page. Yet he persists. But I respect your notice, Ahunt, and will not edit-war further - instead I will seek dispute resolution, as you suggest, if Fnlayson or anyone else in cooperation with him reverts my original valid and sourced remarks without appropriate discussion and agreement first. BLZebubba (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Your excuses are not relevant, just stop edit warring. You now have four reverts of this text and are subject to a block. - Ahunt (talk) 19:02, 14 July 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. Thomas.W talk 21:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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. Kuru  (talk)  23:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Good evening, Kuru. Did I violate the three revert rule and commit edit-warring? Hell, yeah - I did!


 * I'm fine with the punishment you've assessed as long as you punish the other culprits too, since you don't seem to have made much of an inquiry here yet as to what's going on with the article in question. And I'm pretty good with the article as it stands (i.e. the status quo).


 * Their appears to be less than a handful of editors who disruptively edit my recent remarks (some of whom seem to have suddenly popped in solely over my addition to the article at hand - gee, I wonder who they could be: co-workers with a common financial interest in slanting the article perhaps? Noooo!). While I initially assumed their edits were in good faith, they quickly demonstrated their intolerance of my truthful, accurate, thorough and reputably-sourced remarks. I tried to get their agreement on the Talk Page to leave my (pretty brief) remarks alone, to no avail. I had no experience with doing anything else other than what I did to combat them for, while edit-warring and, apparently, reverting even improper edits more than three times is against Wikipedia policy, so are WP:SNEAKY, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, WP:GAME, WP:COI and WP:SOCK, which I believe the users whose edits I reverted may be guilty of.


 * So, as long as you block the reverted editor("s") too, I'm OK for now and not really seeking appeal of your decision. And rather than edit-warring and reverting others' edits more than three times, I expect to pursue the accusations of the sort I just made in their proper venue instead (initially through dispute resolution) - so if you care to advise as to how best to pursue that, I'm all eyes and ears. I also request that the article in question be protected ("pending changes level 1") for at least a week or so, as it stood at 24:00 UTC on July 15, 2014.


 * By the way - I believe kuru is the name of an incurable, fatal neurological disease found in New Guinea - did you know that? Thought you might want to if you didn't already. I hope you don't get it - just remember: "I will not eat my [insert family relationship here]'s organs... I will not eat my [insert family relationship here]'s organs .... BLZebubba (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Good evening, Kuru. While I understand the blocking of me has expired already, I was expecting you to have left some sort of message about it by now, but I see none. As I said previously, if I was blocked without the other parties to the "edit war" having been blocked too - well, I would have a problem with that.


 * You should understand that the edit war stated in the notice/complaint to me really dates back to July 2, 2014 beginning with this reversion/edit/removal of my truthful, relevant and reliably sourced material that I submitted primarily with the intention of improving Wikipedia, and not just with the sequence of events stated in the complaint: 13:33, 2 July 2014 - revision #615289984 by "Ahunt".


 * The other parties to this edit war can be seen - by an insightful person caring to take the time to consider it - to have a record of removing or obscuring accurate and truthful information regarding this article's subject because they deem it to reflect "negatively" on it. I do not believe this approach is in keeping with Wikipedia's aims. I want to correct this problem; accordingly I want to reserve the right to continue the present matter until I've had a reasonable amount of time to present my case.


 * I think you should consider that the article at hand may have been commandeered by a formal or informal PR office that has assumed responsibility for making sure that article only advocates for its subject.

Capitalization of titles
Re:

If you Google something like "capitalization of senator", I don't think you will find any support for edits like the above. One such result is at this page. I'll revert the above edit. Thanks. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)