User talk:Wdcraven

February 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Global warming conspiracy theory has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Global warming conspiracy theory was changed by Wdcraven (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.920206 on 2014-02-23T07:48:21+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Global warming conspiracy theory. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. I am One of Many (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

3RR violation
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Global warming conspiracy theory. 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. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2014 (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.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. 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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, 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. Mifter (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. McSly (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

DS alert - climate change
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

January 2016
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you may be blocked from editing. McSly (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Global warming conspiracy theory. Specifically, when you add deliberate contrary to fact content and then use deceptive edit summaries to hide it, that is vandalism. I am One of Many (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Let me add that no matter how far opinions differ, I have a hard time coming up with an excuse for changing an actual attributed quotation to something completely different. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Using an edit summary of "Corrected grammatical errors" for an edit that dramatically changes the meaning of text is blatantly dishonest. Any further edits of this nature will result in a request for sanctions at WP:AE. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

May 2021
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page 2020 United States presidential election has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. HaeB (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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:. Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Wdcraven (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)