User talk:Ccroberts123

June 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Scrabble, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. SQGibbon (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Mattel. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. SQGibbon (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Mattel’s Scrabble on Facebook
I’ve made a post at Talk:Mattel/Archives/2013 that I suggest you give a read before editing that article again. Thanks. —Frungi (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Mattel because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Ccroberts123: Please stop repeatedly adding unsourced material against consensus, or I will start an RFCC concerning your conduct. You are more than welcome to discuss on the article’s Talk page and try to gain consensus, but clearly, consensus is currently against any such material. —Frungi (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, you’ve violated WP:3RR, which is a blockable offense. And you’ve made no effort to come to any kind of agreement with anyone. I’m sorry, but I’m reporting this. —Frungi (talk) 09:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. DVdm (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

3RR notice
Your recent editing history 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.

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Mattel. — Mel bourne Star ☆ talk 09:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mattel. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Explaining the problem
Assuming you simply don’t understand why your additions about the Facebook Scrabble app were problematic, I’ll try to explain. We’re building an encyclopedia here. Complaints about a Facebook app are not encyclopedic unless there is a reliable source for them. If you do not cite a source (for instance, —but with a real website), then it doesn’t belong in an encyclopedia. If you do have a source for your information, you can try adding it back in, but you must do so in a way that doesn’t sound angry at anyone, including Mattel. I hope this helps. —Frungi (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This is your last and only warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Electronic Arts. DVdm (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice revisited
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for trolling, disruption or harassment. 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. (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 13:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like you to recognize that "indefinite" does not always equal "infinite". Your edits to Mattel were disruptive, unsourced, original research, and non-Neutral Point of view.  You were blocked once as a "warning across the bow".  After the block, you returned to the same ridiculous edits.  As such, it is necessary to protect the project from your disruption until such a point as the community is convinced you won't ever do them again.  Note: the block applies to YOU the PERSON - you are not permitted to edit with another account, or anonymously until this block is resolved (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 14:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)