User talk:Canhistoryeditor

January 2015
Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Amanda Lang, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a &#123;&#123;Talkback&#125;&#125; message on my talk page. @ 05:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Amanda Lang with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Bentogoa (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Amanda Lang with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bentogoa (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
Your recent editing history at Amanda Lang shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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. Tito Dutta (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2015 (UT You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism.   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.  Bishonen &#124; talk 16:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I've put Canhistoryeditor's request into the template as prescribed. The reason for this is not bureacracy run wild, but because the template will automatically call an uninvolved admin to this page to review your request. Without the template, they won't see the request. Bishonen &#124; talk 04:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC).

Dear Mr. Knight, I object to your reasons for declining my request. In your document for Reliable Sources you state that a " reliable source must be third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", however the Canadaland article used as the basis for the Controversy section of this page does not fall into that category. It is completely subjective to state that Ms. lang's commentary on Manulife and Sun Life was "favourable", also, It is incorrect to state that Ms. lang "failed to disclose" her connection to those companies. Please see CBC guidelines to note that Ms. lang was not required to do so. Finally, Canadaland, and Jesse Brown, its Editor, are not considered to be a reliable, established third party source - please see Simon Houpt's article in the Globe and Mail for an expose on Jesse Brown.

I