User talk:Kart34

May 2013
Hello, I'm Transcendence. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Matt Fiddes 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: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Transcendence (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There are, in fact, several problems with your editing.
 * 1) As explained in the message above, if content is provided with references to reliable sources, you should not remove it without explaining why. You can give a short explanation in an edit summary (use the box labelled "Edit summary" immediately below the editing area when you edit a page) or, if you need to give a more detailed explanation, you can post a message on the talk page of the article you are editing: in this case, Talk:Matt Fiddes.
 * 2) The other side of the same coin is that you should avoid adding content unless you can provide a reliable source to support it, and you must not add any such unsourced content again without sources if it is removed. The fact that someone or other chooses to create a Wikipedia account and post a statement in an article is not reliable evidence that it the statement is true, and if anyone questions or challenges the statement, it must not be restored without a reliable source.
 * 3) Whether you explain your reasons or not, if you find that your edits are challenged by other editors, do not keep repeating the same, or substantially the same, edits, in an attempt to force your preferred version through. Doing so, known as edit warring, is considered disruptive, and can lead to being blocked from editing. Instead, discuss the reasons for your edits with other editors, and try to reach agreement. If that fails, there are other methods of proceeding described at WP:Dispute resolution, but usually a discussion on the article's talk page is enough to resolve the issues.
 * 4) Editing for the purpose of promoting or improving someone's reputation is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Either adding content in order to give a good impression or removing content to avoid a bad impression is unacceptable.
 * 5) It seems likely that you are either Matt Fiddes or someone connected to him, in which case you have a conflict of interest in editing about him. In that case, you should avoid editing the article. If you think there are factual inaccuracies which need to be corrected, you can post a message on the talk page asking for the change to be made. If you put the tag just above your request, it will attract people who monitor requested edits to come and check your request.

One other thing. Are you the same person who previously edited using the username Kungfu10? If so, can you explain why you have used more than one account, and if not can you say what your connection you have to the person who used that account? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent edit warring, together with other disruptive editing, as explained above, with no attempt to respond to messages, or to explain your reasons for your edits. 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 below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)