User talk:Parisking147

August 2014
Hello, I'm Frosty. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Stedman Pearson with this edit, 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, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —Frosty ☃ 04:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

warning
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Stedman Pearson, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. 88.104.30.183 (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

final warning
This is your last warning. You will be reported and may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with Stedman Pearson. Thank you. 88.104.20.59 (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Stedman Pearson. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Soultruck (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. 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.


 * I have blocked your account for 1 week for long-term edit warring. I understand why the material you've repeatedly removed from the article might be problematic if you're either the subject or related to them. However, it is well-sourced and written and compliant with out policies. If you are willing to explain your rationale so far, we are willing to listen and consider. Alternatively, you may use email by following the instructions here. But simply blanking the article is not going to work, and may result in your account being permanently blocked. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)