User talk:DAVIDB6311

September 2012[edit]

Hello, I'm Theopolisme. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions to Jose Antonio Vargas because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Theo polisme 03:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jose Antonio Vargas. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Jose Antonio Vargas was changed by DAVIDB6311 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.911312 on 2012-09-22T05:01:45+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Jose Antonio Vargas with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Jschnur (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Jose Antonio Vargas shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and WP:BLP violations, as you did at Jose Antonio Vargas. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, 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. Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]