User talk:Expresscoffee

April 2019
Hello, I'm 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco. 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 to Armstrongism seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Armstrongism has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. This edit was clearly a content edit, not "fixed typos" Doug Weller  talk 12:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I've given you a lot of links, you might want to start with the Tutorial
And don't forget to sign when you post to talk pages as explained at the beginning of the welcome message. 09:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

As you've suggested I have a personal related bias with the Armstrong church, and I responded, could you let me know your relationshi8p?
Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * No? You're just going to throw accusations at me instead? Ok. Doug Weller  talk 11:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
Your recent editing history at Garner Ted Armstrong shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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.''Since 03:03, 16 August 2019‎  you've been editwarring at this page mainly using your IP address. This if nothing else is bound to lead to a block.'' Doug Weller  talk 12:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring, egregious personal attacks, and clearly not being here to create an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)