User talk:Breddick347

June 2015
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ave Maria University, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join new discussions on Ave Maria University talk page
Hi! In light of a flurry of recent edits to Ave Maria University, I've opened a couple of new discussions at Talk:Ave Maria University. We should probably work to achieve consensus there. I'll be inviting all the named users who have been editing at AMU. Thanks in advance for your input! Jacona (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Ave Maria University. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)