User talk:Truconservative

Welcome
Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Diannaa (Talk) 19:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Truconservative. Just a note to let you know that the material was removed because such large chunks of content dropped in unchanged from outside sources is a violation of copyright law. I did not assess the material for inclusion under other criteria. I suggest you discuss the matter on the talk page and determine what to include in the article and how to word it. Thanks. -- Diannaa (Talk) 20:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Diannaa (Talk) 20:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Utah HB 116


A tag has been placed on Utah HB 116, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bailo26 (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Carl Wimmer with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Bailo26 (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked
For edit warring on Carl Wimmer. Please take the time to read the copyright and biographies of living persons concerns. &mdash; Scientizzle 21:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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. &mdash; Scientizzle 21:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note the concerns listed at Talk:Carl Wimmer. You're unlikely to be unblocked without demonstrating that you both understand and are willing to abide by policies regarding copyright violations and biographies of living persons. &mdash; Scientizzle 21:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

One account only please
User:Wimmerleaks editing on the last two dates you edited is too much of a coincidence for me. (both of you - today and prior to that both accounts last edited on March 20) Please stick to a single account and have a read of WP:SOCKPUPPET and/or WP:MEATPUPPET - Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
Your recent editing history at Carl Wimmer shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.  freshacconci  talk talk  03:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)