User talk:Jimdavis060

February 2013
Hello, I'm Spencer. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Shocker Toys with this edit without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks,  Spencer T♦ C 22:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually I did provide a reason why and posted on the talk section unless I was edited by this person who is violating the rules of allowing info to be added not related to the company. My point is posted in the talk section. JimDavis060

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Shocker Toys with this edit, 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.  Spencer T♦ C 23:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Spencer my removal was warranted and was explained why in numerous posts. I think another editor should look into this as it seems you may have some bias attached to the article. Why would you want to keep Web media articles who promote a company that does not exsist on wiki and if it did their page would be voted for delete. I am a bit confused how this is allowed for a company that has no real media links on wiki. JimDavis060

Your recent editing history at Shocker Toys 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. See BRD for how this is done. 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. —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)