User talk:L.lefarge

June 2017
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to OneCoin, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 11:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss it on the talk page, and explain your concerns there, don't just remove it. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 11:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. I noticed that you recently removed content from OneCoin without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. 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. Thanks. &mdash; O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  11:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at OneCoin. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and 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 Wikipedia. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. &mdash; O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  11:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

OneCoin/Vietnam
There are two sources in that section, I suggest you read both; and discuss your concern on the talk page of the article instead of just removing material you don't like. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 11:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at OneCoin. Final warning for repeated removal of content; see article history and user's talk page. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 11:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at OneCoin 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 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. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 11:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Your edits on OneCoin
Hello. Judging by your edits (enough edits on other articles first, in order to become autoconfirmed, and then straight to OneCoin, a protected article, to rewrite the lede, and remove any mention of "ponzi scheme"...) your only reason for being here, on the English language Wikipedia, is to whitewash OneCoin, an article about a very controversial company, which means that I cannot assume that you're editing in good faith when removing sourced material. So present your concerns on the talk page of the article, and get support from other editors there, before removing anything, or rewriting anything in the article! - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 11:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. &mdash; O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  11:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at OneCoin. 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 request an unblock 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. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

OneCoin‎

 * You are on the verge of getting blocked again. You need to take your concerns to the talk page and stop reverting.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)