User talk:Lymaniffy

December 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Sport in Mexico has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Sport in Mexico was changed by Lymaniffy (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.96806 on 2014-12-14T04:04:25+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy and WP:Personal attacks
When I reverted you here and here at the Computer crime article, it's because my reverting you was the right thing to do. What is the specific child abuse that the sentence is referring to? It's child pornography. There are many types of child abuse, and the vast majority of child abuse happens off the Internet and is not on the Internet, which is why stating that "[o]ne area of Internet pornography that has been the target of the strongest efforts at curtailment is child abuse" is poor wording. Also, stop stating this type of thing ("cheap bitch"). It'll only serve to get you WP:Blocked.Flyer22 (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Bomis. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: 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 and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Materialscientist (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

February 2015
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Michael Jackson, 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. Mlpearc ( open channel ) 22:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. 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. 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. Kinu t/c 07:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)