User talk:NottsStudent09

'' Enjoy your stay at Wikipedia!  - sorf ane 10:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!(NottsStudent09 (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)).

The 3-revert rule
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. __meco (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.


 * Thanks I wasn't sure as that template said not to use it if you were the blocked person. NottsStudent09 (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion involving you
Another user has opened Sockpuppet investigations/Verbal and mentioned you. This is purely a courtesy notice, as I think the allegation is a little bit silly based on the tone and style of your edits and my high opinion of Verbal. There are instructions at the abovelinked page if you would like to respond, or please feel free to ask me if you would like help with any matter. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 20:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Never mind - the discussion is archived and all is right with the world. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Jim Tucker
Hi, if you are going to continue re-adding a tag indicating notability issues onto the Jim Tucker page it would be helpful if you could make an appearance on the articles talk page justifying your actions, and in particular explaining why you do not beleive references 5,7,8,9,10,16,19,27 do not establish notability. Cheers. Artw (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)