User talk:Bialikcollege

Your edit to Bialik College
Your recent edit to Bialik College (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot4 04:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not simply delete content from the article Bialik College. If you wish to disagree with material, please discuss it in the talk page. Further tampering with this article may result in being blocked. Thank you. Meeples 07:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove content from a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meeples (talk • contribs) 07:54 (UTC), August 4, 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Threats
You threaten legal action against myself for reverting your attempts at using Wikipedia for self-promotion —- and then finish off with "thanks kindly"?! Please familarise yourself with Wikipedia policy to avoid making such brazen remarks; refer to What Wikipedia is not, Vanity guidelines and No legal threats. michael talk 12:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to correct the text; however, do not use the page as a promotional vehicle. Such action will be reverted, and a block will most likely be imposed. Thank you. michael talk 13:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are being reverted by Wikipedians, not just bots. If you wish to change the text, do so in a neutral fashion. Simply removing what is already in place and replacing it with promotional material is inappropriate. I'm going to place a TotallyDisputed template on the article until the dispute is solved. michael talk 13:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would also like to draw your attention to Three-revert ruleUcanlookitup 13:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest you identify the sections you dispute, and why, on the talk page for the article. Somebody new coming and deleting large slabs of text is usually seen as a vandal, not a helpful editor, just based on prior experience. I'm sure you can understand that. Since the article appears to have very few references cited, adding is also a (usually) inoffensive way of noting that claims are not cited, although that's usually for things that might be true. Better would be to correct the wrong info, and provide a reliable source reference for your change. --Scott Davis Talk 13:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for everyones help with this matter.