User talk:DustinLevine

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! SL93 (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 William De Los Santos, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! SL93 (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

June 2013
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors&#32; according to your reverts at Chaffey High School. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William De Los Santos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Republic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Chaffey High School, you may be blocked from editing. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Eastern Oregon University, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for persistently contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. This is not a gossip site: you must not add information without a reliable source. 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 the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JohnCD (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)