User talk:Buildingfountain

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Whittier Law School, 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.--S. Rich (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello, Buildingfountain. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Whittier Law School, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --S. Rich (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

removal of content
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Whittier Law School, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.--S. Rich (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Whittier Law School, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Whittier Law School, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --S. Rich (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Whittier Law School 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.  City O f  Silver  16:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Whittier Law School, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Whittier Law School. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

 * Sir, you have been warned and blocked before for your edit warring behavior. You MUST go to the talk page and start a dialogue about your wanted changes.  You have been reported again to AIV for edit warring immediately after coming off block.  Please try to learn to work in a cooperative group environment.  If you can't, well, you are welcome to take your jacks and go home. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for immediately resuming edit warring after your previous block expired. As others have said, you need to discuss these edits on the articles talk page. If you edit war again, you'll be reblock--either for a longer time period or even indefinitely. Wikipedia requires collaboration, as you did at Whittier Law School. 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. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Buildingfoundation's next set of edits did have explanations and were WP:AFG. Bot edits were incorrect, and I reported as false positive. Bot's message deleted too. While BF should take his/her edit views to the talk page instead of tending towards warring, I think the 48 hour block is a WP:BITE and BF should appeal.--S. Rich (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)15:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Having an explanation in an edit summary is not enough to avoid edit warring. Once multiple users have reverted you, it's time to go to the talk page and discuss the issue. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong--you can't edit war. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)