User talk:Crows Forever

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Yoenit. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * yoenit and fram are not vandals they are respected users here and don't give me vandalism warnings just because i reverted you-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  12:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''These edits you are reverting are not vandalism. Please continue discussion on the talk page if you have an argument to make against inclusion.'' Onorem♠Dil 12:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding 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. Materialscientist (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I second that. The content is by no means clear vandalism, and the included sourcing equally evades WP:BLP. In other words, this is an edit war, where 3RR applies. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 13:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)