User talk:Universaladdress/Archive 1

Templating

I reverted your addition of a "disruptive editing" templating at Jfdwolff's talk page. Removing a template once is clearly not disruptive editing, and giving such warnings when they are not warranted do not improve the editing environment. Please take more care in the future. Yobol (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not the first time by a long shot that he has engaged in this disruptive editing re: the contradiction, but I leave it to your discretion. Personally, I felt I was being as polite as possible. Universaladdress (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Zilla

Care to explain your edits?©Geni 20:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Your perfidious vandalism has been reverted. Do not delete content without explanation. Thanks! Universaladdress (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mac Gargan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Gargan squeezed his agent for financial details on a proposed book, TV and movie deal (''"How many back points? And residuals? Fantastic. That foreign'' and ''domestic?"'', demanded

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Jesus's people and Zhonghua minzu

Hi. What excactly is the connection here? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Frank Sanello. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit war on The People's Court

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on The People's Court.

While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.

If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.

Continued edit warring on The People's Court or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Toddst1 (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I don't believe this is true given the sheer number of people who seem to be trying to deal with one editor's reverts, but thanks for the useful information. Universaladdress (talk) 07:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Further, I don't have 3 reverts on that article. Are you sure this was meant for me? Universaladdress (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)