User talk:Rsoltz

Would you please stop editing comments that, for example, the 2010s run from 2011 through 2020. It's been rejected by a clear consensus. Unless you can provide evidence that it's actually used with that meaning, you are violating Wikipedia policies, regardless of whether it would make sense to define it that way. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to 2010s, you will be blocked from editing. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► Speaker ─╢ 09:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Last chance
It does matter what the majority opinion is; see 'Consensus'. If you continue to add material to Wikipedia without listing a reliable source, you will be blocked. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► assemblyman ─╢ 09:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war&#32;at 2010s. 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. NJA (t/ c)  10:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked for continuing to edit war at the 2010s article. Because this is not the first time you have been blocked for edit warring, the duration of the block is now 72 hours. You may resume editing after the block expires, but continued edit warring will result in considerably longer blocks without further warnings. Kafziel Complaint Department 01:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The previous block message quite clearly stated that you were blocked for edit warring and for failing to discuss controversial changes. Absolutely nobody (except you) said anything about references. If you want to seek dispute resolution, that's fine - you may do so in three days. While you wait, I suggest you take some time to read the policy. Kafziel Complaint Department 07:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Besides, Rsoltz's reference was bogus. That text says absolutely nothing about decades in general or 2010s in particular; it does not even contain the words "decade" or "2010s". So, citing it as a reference for Rsoltz's claim that "2010s begins in 2011" is a clear violation of WP:Verifiability (The source ... must clearly support the material as presented in the article.). Providing false citations is not much better than providing no citations at all. --Jmk (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)