User talk:Rusty ShackIeford

September 2020
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Use the talk page please, as I asked, instead of continually reverting. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
Hello, I'm Nkon21. I noticed that you recently removed content from Chicago without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯  talk  18:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Your apparent vandalism to multiple city articles has been reverted. Please do not vandalize Wikipedia. If you continue to abuse your editing privileges, you will be suspended or permanently blocked. Thank you for your cooperation. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Excessive linking
Why are you running around articles adding links without explanation that are not only unnecessary, but may be actively distracting? Please read the guidelines on what and where to link carefully. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Rusty ShackIeford. Thank you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * is carrying on Rusty Shackleford's nearly single purpose to add unnecessary political subdivisions to well-known cities (Toronto, Sydney, Amsterdam, etc.) and numerous overlinks. Despite reverts with explanations about excessive and over linking, they don't appear to get the point and continue. Please handle accordingly. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , If you think it's the same editor, file a sockpuppetry report at WP:SPI. Alternatively, I can quickly ping a checkuser such as who can quickly look and block accordingly. Ritchie333 (talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever is the easiest. Or maybe block Troy for the same reasons as for Rusty (their edits are nearly the same). —Ojorojo (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)