User talk:Murton50M

Welcome to my talk page for Osbaldwick Parish council (Inc Murton)

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Josh24B. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As has been explained to your various other sockpuppet accounts

 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, using, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote anything.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Credentials are irrelevant, noone here cares about them, we will ignore them.

Even if you are a government worker who is only coincidentally behaving exactly like all of Josh24B's other sockpuppets, that doesn't matter, you have to cite sources, and not give undue weight, and not use Wikipedia to promote the wrong bus times for Transdev York and associated companies. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
Your recent editing history at Osbaldwick 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. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)