User talk:Dukeofappling

October 2015
Hello, I'm JustBerry. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Evans High School (Georgia) because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. JustBerry (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

January 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Donald Trump has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Hello, I'm Moxy. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Moxy (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Donald Trump was changed by Dukeofappling (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.90436 on 2016-01-31T20:29:22+00:00.

Your recent editing history at Donald Trump 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 are 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. &#8209; Iridescent 20:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Donald Trump. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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. &#8209; Iridescent 20:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

To Irodescent
Dude, you need to leave me alone! I will block you! If you don't revert my edits, I'm calling Jimmy Wales himself! Dukeofappling (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead—I can safely guess what his reply will be. &#8209; Iridescent 20:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

To Iridescent
We are not friends! Leave me alone, bully Dukeofappling (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not and common mistakes that should be avoided. The five pillars is a popular summary of the most pertinent Wikipedia principles.The goal of a Wikipedia article is to create a comprehensive and neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge about a topic. Accordingly, Wikipedia does not publish original research. An encyclopedia is, by its nature, a tertiary source that provides a survey of information already the subject of publication in the wider world. Some standards and  behavioural expectations may be enforced. General social norms should be followed by all Wikipedia editors. --Moxy (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)