User talk:Tincup2684

Robert Ehrlich Controversies
Hi! I see that three times you've deleted several controversies on the Robert Ehrlich page. Before you do so again, please discuss the matter on the Talk:Robert Ehrlich page and explain how you feel the content is outdated and redundant. Specifically, what makes the content out-of-date--is more recent information available? And what makes it redundant--where is it duplicated? Thanks. Spril4 (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I am warning you regarding an ongoing edit war and the administrator notice I am creating regarding it.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Robert Ehrlich. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the Edit_warring page states "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." I have attempted to engage you in discussion about your repeated section blanking on both the Robert Ehrlich Talk Page and your user page here.

"If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors" Spril4 (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Your edits of Robert Ehrlich are being discussed elsewhere
Please see WP:AN3. Administrators have to decide whether you should be blocked for edit warring. You may add a comment in your own defence if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Robert Ehrlich
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Tincup2684, I added a closing brace to your unblock request so it would show up properly. Your request was placed at 22:51 on 24 February. EdJohnston (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have extended your block three more days due to this IP edit, which appears to be WP:EVASION. EdJohnston (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2013
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Tom Corbett, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Tom Corbett with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  03:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Kathleen Kane (politician). Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  03:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Kathleen Kane (politician). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Stop Spreading Your Bias Propaganda
Watchlist: Tom Corbett, Kathleen Kane

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC) From Tincup2684's email to me: i was simply adding information that factually correct. i should not be blocked for that. Wstlngtime is a bias user and there is no way to resolved the dispute on his talk page.


 * No, you were not "simply adding information". You were simply edit warring.  There's no excuse for that, especially since you've been blocked for it before.  Use the talk page or I don't forsee you having a long future here. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)