User talk:Swissfishpool

December 2016
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Nobel Oil Group, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Also see WP:TPO. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Nobel Oil Group, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Warning message
Why did you leave an only warning notice here on 's talk page? He reverted your edit because you failed to explain it in the edit summary. His reversion was not an illegitimate one.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And then you reverted him and put it back... please stop.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

as you see below David uses insulting word.
 * "Insulting word"? I don't see anything that's insulting or a civility violation. Can you explain and help me to understand what your concerns are?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"stupid messages" - it is not neutral definitely.
 * Okay... well, lets not repeatedly revert the placement of a template on his talk page. If you have concerns or want to talk to David Biddulph, leave him a message on his talk page and use your words. I'm sure he'll act reasonably and talk to you about it if you act reasonably as well :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

not a problem. will try. if I am newcomer it doesn`t mean my msgs are stupid, otherwise why we are here.

also David launched investigation. Make your own conclusion
 * I agree with your statement regarding how messages should not be assumed to be "stupid" (as you put it) simply because you are a new editor. Our behavioral guidelines are based around assuming good faith and doing what's possible to avoid biting newcomers if their contributions (even if wrong or incorrect) seem to be good-faith attempts and due to simply not understanding all the rules yet.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring on my talk page
Your recent editing history at User talk:David Biddulph shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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.Stop repeatedly posting your stupid messages on my user talk page. Please read WP:UP and Don't restore removed comments. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Page move
I have reverted your page move as it was done without any discussion and is not apparent either. If you want to move a page, please see the instructions at WP:RM how to do it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017
This is your only warning; if you move a page maliciously again, as you did at Nobel Oil Group, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Explanation attempts for the Russian apartment bombings, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)