User talk:Cyrrk

November 2011
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Modern liberalism in the United States, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dave Dial (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

March 2012
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rush Limbaugh - Sandra Fluke controversy, 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. Blake Burba (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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 Rush Limbaugh - Sandra_Fluke controversy, you may be blocked from editing. Blake Burba (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. AV3000 (talk) 11:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy 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. 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. AV3000 (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI; understand the frustration at the blatant POV. Probably need the "All-male" talking point in at some point, as this was the talking point, just as "theme of the Democrat criticism", but if you refer to the Talk page, where NPOV has been discussed, FIRST, and THEN make the article more objective, you avoid getting taunted and sandbagged. Hope that helps. Good luck.209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

EW report
You have been reported for edit warring. AV3000 (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Kuru  (talk)  12:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for abusing multiple accounts/block evasion
You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your . Vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)